Ram Autar Singh - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra in Criminal Case No. 34/08 (Smt. Seema Dew v. State of U.P.) arising out of Crime No. 40/07 of P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra, wherein application moved by the revisionist Smt. Seema Devi Chaudhari under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of Bolero Vehicle No. HR-37A/7332 has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard Shri Rameshwar Prasad holding brief of Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.GA. for the State of U.P. on this revision and perused the record. It appears from the record that a case under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act was registered at Crime No. 40/07 at P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra on 25.1.2007 at 2.15 P.M. with this allegation that on the basis of information furnished by one informer, S.I., Shri Narain Tripathi, Incharge S.O.G, D.I.G Range, Agra along with police force raided the house of the revisionist at 11.30 A.M. where one Bolero Jeep being No. HR-37A/7332 was found lying in front of the house of the revisionist and the husband of the revisionist was sitting on the driver seat. The police party on the basis of suspicion arrested the husband of the revisionist and conducted search of above Bolero Jeep, in which 43 small packets of Charas from the last seat of above Jeep were recovered. The police then prepared a recovery memo and brought accused along with recovered Charas to police station where above case was registered against Raj Singh, the husband of the revisionist. The revisionist then moved an application before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Agra, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of above Bolero vehicle claiming herself to be registered owner of the said vehicle. She also alleged in her application that she was not involved in transportation of any narcotic drugs nor she was made co-accused in the said case and her jeep was handed over to U.P. Power Corporation on hire under an agreement at the rate of Rs. 9950/- per month, but she could not allege as to how the said vehicle was taken into possession of accused Raj Singh and she was not having any knowledge of alleged offence. It has been found that the first application was moved by the revisionist on 3.2.2007 in the said Court but the same was dismissed on 17.4.2007, against which she filed Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 2007 in this Court but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 29.7.2008. The revisionist then moved another application in the Court below, which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2008, aggrieved by which, the revisionist filed this revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the vehicle has never been involved in the offence and prosecution has failed to collect any evidence that the present revisionist is also involved in the commission of alleged offence. It is further contended that the Apex Court has held that the vehicle lying at police station should be released forthwith, because due to bad weather and atmosphere the condition of vehicle will be deteriorated. The alleged vehicle has been taken over by UPPCL department on hire in the year 2006 and the husband of the revisionist was employed as constable in Railway Protection Force and on the alleged date of occurrence he was performing his night duty and when in the morning he came to his house, the police arrested him on the suspicion and thus the entire case was based on presumption, suspicion and preparation of a false recovery memo. It might be true that something was recovered from the Jeep but the police did not comply with the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of N.D.P.S. Act before search of the Jeep. The revisionist had also deputed a driver on the aforesaid jeep. It appears that somebody left the aforesaid article in the jeep, made a complaint to the police officers and falsely implicated her husband. The vehicle in question was purchased by the revisionist by taking a loan and due to non release of the vehicle the revisionist could not make payment of installments.;