Judgment:
Mcr.C.No.1142 o”
14. 03.13 Shri B.J.Chourasia, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/State. State counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Although, this matter is listed today for admission but in the available scenario of the case, taking into consideration that the case diary is available, instead to hear on admission, the same is heard for final disposal. ORDER
(oral) The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.12 passed by the ASJ Rehli, Sagar in in Cr.R. No.138/12 dismissing his revision and affirming the order dated 9.5.12 passed by the JMFC Rehli in criminal case No.216/12 whereby his application filed as power of attorney holder of one Smt Shakuntala Dubey under section 457 read with 451 of the Cr.P.C for giving the interim custody of the alleged bus, has been dismissed.
2. Shri Chourasia, counsel of the applicant after taking me through the petition as well as the impugned order of the revisional court and other papers available on the record argued that the impugned bus bearing registration not MP-15-PA-0120, registered in the name of sister-in-law of the applicant, namely, Smt Shakuntala Dubey was seized by the police Rehli in connection of the Crime No.76/12 registered for the offence of section 279 ,337 and 304-A of the IPC and section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He further said that subsequent to such seizure of the vehicle as power of attorney holder of aforesaid Shakuntala Dubey, the applicant has filed the aforesaid application under section 457 read with section 451 of the Cr.P.C for giving the interim custody of such vehicle. A copy of registration certificate, fitness certificate, insurance policy and other requisite papers were also placed before the trial court as well as the same are placed before this court. The original power of attorney was placed in the trial court also. He further said that inspite entitlement of the the applicant to get the interim custody of bus as power of attorney holder of said Smt Shakuntala Dubey, his application was dismissed under wrong premises. On filing the revision, the same was also dismissed under wrong premises. In such premises, he prayed to allow this petition with a direction to give the interim custody of aforesaid bus to the applicant for Smt Shakuntala Dubey.
3. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State counsel saying that the manner in which the impugned application was filed by the present applicant, the same could not be entertained by the trial court and it was rightly dismissed and such order was rightly affirmed by the revisional court. In addition he also said that if the applicant was the power of attorney holder then he should have mentioned his name in the cause title of the application as power of attorney holder of Shakuntala Dubey only and prayed for dismissal of this petition. He also said that if the applicant is found to be entitled to get the interim custody of vehicle as power of attorney holder of Smt Shakuntala Dubey then in that circumstance, the applicant be directed to file the fresh application by mentioning the correct description of the parties on the cause title before the trial court, with some appropriate direction to such court to consider such application.
4. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, after perusing the impugned order along with the papers placed on the record so also the case diary, I am of the considered view that the impugned application for interim custody was filed by the applicant in a very vague manner as in the cause title of the petition it was not stated that same is being filed by the applicant as power of attorney holder of Smt Shakuntala Dubey the registered owner of said bus. It also appears from the order of the revisional court that the annexed documents with such application were not readable. So, in view of such material technical irregularity in the application of the applicant there was no option with the trial court except to dismiss the application and, in such premises, such order was rightly affirmed by the revisional court. It is apparent from the order of the revisional court that while dismissing the revision, the applicant has been extended the liberty to file the fresh application before the trial curt for interim custody of said bus.
5. It is also apparent that in this petition also the applicant has again committed such mistake and filed the same by mentioning only his name, as such, has not stated himself to be the power of attorney holder of Smt Shakuntala Dubey. So, in such premises, this petition could not be allowed in toto with a direction for interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant as power of attorney holder of Smt Shakuntala Dubey. But the same may be disposed of with some liberty to the applicant and some directions to the trial court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of by extending liberty to the applicant to file the fresh application under section 457 read with section 451 of the Cr.P.C for interim custody of the bus before the trial court by mentioning himself to be the power of attorney holder of the registered owner of the vehicle Smt Shakuntala Dubey on the cause-title of the application so also along with the readable papers of the bus like registration, fitness certificate, insurance policy and other requisite documents.
7. Pursuant to aforesaid, the trial court is directed that on filing the fresh application on behalf of the registered owner by the applicant as her power of attorney holder then the same be considered by speaking order and if Shakuntala Dubey is found fit for taking interim custody then such interim custody be given in accordance with the legal position to the applicant as her power of attorney holder. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL