Ram Kumar GuptA. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Ram Kumar GuptA. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 02, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912243

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912243
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Shri Kant Tripathi, J.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11420 of 2008
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.] - Code Of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) - Section 340 - Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195 -- That the petitioner came to know that the respondent has authored a book "Balwant Singh: Fun Aur Shakshiyat" and got it published in 2003. Aforementioned application was dismissed by the learned ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 451, 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Kumar GuptA.

Advocate K.K. Tripathi, Adv.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 451, 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B

Excerpt

[ajit bharihoke, j.] - code of criminal procedure (cr.p.c) - section 340 - procedure in cases mentioned in section 195 -- that the petitioner came to know that the respondent has authored a book "balwant singh: fun aur shakshiyat" and got it published in 2003. aforementioned application was dismissed by the learned m.m. vide order dated 22nd july, 2009. feeling aggrieved by dismissal of the application under section 340 crpc, the petitioner filed an appeal, which appeal was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge vide order dated 02.01.2010. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, respondent is the author of the book titled "balwant singh: fun aur shakshiyat". learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has referred to the affidavit of the respondent dated 26th february, 2011 filed pursuant to the direction of this court dated 16th december, 2010, wherein she has categorically averred that she never permitted the publisher to bring out second prints of the book after 15th september, 2003 nor the earlier agreement dated 15th september, 2003 has ever been revived with the publisher. learned counsel submitted that from this, it is evident that even the publication of book was part financed by the respondent. learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the book purchased by him in december 2008, which is taken on record. perusal of the book would show this copy of book was reprint of published in the year 2003. petition is accordingly dismissed......that the aforesaid vehicle was no doubt, as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, involved in committing the aforesaid offences but the applicant is neither an accused nor he was in any way involved in the commission of the offences. in fact the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by the applicant's driver and the applicant had no knowledge that the vehicle was used by him for committing the aforesaid offences. 6. it was next submitted that in view of the principles of law propounded in the case of sunderbhai ambalal desai v state of gujarat [2003 air supreme court 638] it was not proper on the part of the courts below to refuse the handing over of the vehicle in favour of the applicant. it was not desirable to keep the vehicle at the police station. almost the courts below would have asked for adequate security for ensuring the production of the vehicle as and when required. instead of doing so, the courts below rejected the release application on altogether unwarranted grounds.7. in the case of sunderbhai ambalal desai (supra), the apex court has dealt with the similar matter and propounded the following principles of law: 8. "the powers under s. 451 cr pc should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. it would serve various purposes, namely:-1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.3. if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. if necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and4. the jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. the supreme court further observed:9. in our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and perused the record.

2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2004 (Ram Kumar Gupta v State of U.P.) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the applicant's revision and confirmed the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 13 of 2008 (State v Ram Milan & others), under sections 364, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Kakvan, District Kanpur Dehat.

3. It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the applicants application for release of his vehicle UP 74-B/2216 on the ground that the vehicle was used for the commission of the offences, under the aforesaid sections. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on the ground that no case for interference was made out.

4. It was not disputed before me that the applicant is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was no doubt, as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, involved in committing the aforesaid offences but the applicant is neither an accused nor he was in any way involved in the commission of the offences. In fact the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by the applicant's driver and the applicant had no knowledge that the vehicle was used by him for committing the aforesaid offences.

6. It was next submitted that in view of the principles of law propounded in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State of Gujarat [2003 AIR Supreme Court 638] it was not proper on the part of the courts below to refuse the handing over of the vehicle in favour of the applicant. It was not desirable to keep the vehicle at the Police Station. Almost the courts below would have asked for adequate security for ensuring the production of the vehicle as and when required. Instead of doing so, the courts below rejected the release application on altogether unwarranted grounds.

7. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Apex Court has dealt with the similar matter and propounded the following principles of law:

8. "The powers under S. 451 Cr PC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. The Supreme Court further observed:

9. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. It was also observed:

10. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under section 451 Cr.PC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and also the fact that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and is not an accused in the case, I consider it just and expedient to direct the concerned Magistrate to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the applicant.

11. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 (annexure 5) and 25.02.2008 (annexure) are quashed. The aforesaid vehicle is directed to be released in favour of the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and also subject to the condition that the applicant will keep the vehicle safely and produce the same as and when required by the court during the trial and will not transfer the same without prior permission of the trial court.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Ram Kumar GuptA. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 451, 482; Indian ...

Criminal