Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Smt. Yogeeta Vijay Patel & Anr.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. P.K. Sathianathan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. V.G. Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicant no.1 and Mr. W.T. Mathew, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.

This revision application challenges the order dated 06-02-2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Nagpur below Exhibit-198 in Special Criminal Case No.05/2024. Learned Counsel Mr. Sathianathan, appearing for the applicant, submits that the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the application for release of the vehicle was moved by the C.B.I., and that neither non-applicant No. 1 nor her husband had ever approached the Court seeking release of the vehicle on supurtnama under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel further submits that although the learned Court found non-applicant No. 1 to be the person to whom custody of the vehicle could be handed over, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court, Nagpur, committed an error in imposing a condition that the vehicle be handed over to non-applicant No. 1, Yogeeta, in the same condition in which it was seized. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle was seized on 18-02-2013 and, thereafter, has remained in the A.C.B. office of the C.B.I. since its seizure in the year 2013. Neither non-applicant No. 1 nor non-applicant No. 2, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, had made any efforts for release of the said vehicle during all these years. It is submitted that the applicant had moved the application in the interest of the non-applicants. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge,C.B.I., Nagpur, that custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-31-CP 5441 be handed over in the same condition as it was on the date of seizure is onerous and difficult to comply with. It is further submitted that the direction issued by the learned Special Court requiring the vehicle to be made functional before handing over its custody was also unwarranted. Learned Counsel further submits that such onerous conditions, which are difficult or impossible to comply with, ought not to have been imposed by the learned Trial Court while directing release of the vehicle. The vehicle was sought to be released by the C.B.I., i.e. the prosecution in the present crime, only on the ground that it had remained unclaimed for several years. In such circumstances, the condition imposed by the learned Special Court was onerous and, therefore, liable to be deleted while allowing the application for release of the vehicle in favour of non-applicant No. 1. The applicant-C.B.I. is ready and willing to hand over custody of the vehicle in the condition in which it is found as on the date of handing over, and shall prepare a panchanama recording the condition of the vehicle at the time of handing over its custody. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside to the extent it imposes the condition that the vehicle be handed over in the same condition in which it was seized, as well as the further condition requiring the vehicle to be made functional before handing over its custody.

Mr. Sathianathan, learned counsel for the applicant, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Gazi vs State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1326, to buttress his submission that the law does not compel a man to condition imposed, namely, to hand over the vehicle by restoring it to its original position, is one which is impossible to perform, and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 1, strongly opposes the revision application on the ground that the condition imposed by the learned Trial Court was justified, particularly in view of the serious violation of the prescribed procedure allegedly committed by the C.B.I. while effecting the seizure of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was seized from the possession of Raghuveer Singh vide seizure memo dated 18-02-2013. The said vehicle had been purchased by the husband of non-applicant No.1, namely Vijay (applicant), from Sandeep Kumar, non-applicant No.2 herein, pursuant to an agreement dated 09-06-2012. It is further submitted that the necessary documents relating to transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle were signed by both the parties and, accordingly, the vehicle was in the possession and ownership of the husband of the present applicant. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the seizure of the vehicle was effected in gross violation of the procedure required to be followed by the C.B.I. In view thereof, the condition imposed by the learned Trial Court directing that the vehicle be handed over in the same condition in which it was found at the time of seizure was justified. Hence, learned Counsel Mr. Tiwari prays that the impugned order, insofar as it imposes the condition regarding handing over of the vehicle in the same condition as on the date of its seizure, be maintained and the present revision application be dismissed. Learned Counsel further submits, in the alternative, that if the vehicle is found to be in a condition which renders it non-functional, the C.B.I. may be directed to appropriately compensate non-applicant No.1.

Learned counsel, Mr. Tiwari, further submits that if the vehicle is not restored to its original condition as directed by the learned trial Court, the amount representing the depreciated cost of the vehicle shall instead be awarded to the Petitioner, who is the widow of the original accused, by way of compensation. In support of this submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandrabhan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28877/2025, decided on 30-04-2026.

Mr. Mathew, learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31-CP 5441 had already expired on 26-06-2022, as reflected from the R.C. Registration Certificate of the vehicle. He further submits that the insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle had also expired on 06-07-2013. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the condition imposed by the learned Trial Court requiring the vehicle to be handed over in the same condition in which it was found at the time of seizure, as well as the direction requiring the vehicle to be made functional before its release, deserves to be appropriately considered. Learned Counsel accordingly prays that appropriate orders be passed in the interest of justice.

After taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31-CP 5441 was seized from one Raghuvir Singh vide seizure memo dated 18-02-2013. The said vehicle was owned by the husband of non-applicant No.1, namely Vijay, pursuant to the agreement dated 09-06-2012 entered into between Vijay and Sandeep Kumar. The vehicle remained in the custody of the C.B.I. from the date of its seizure, i.e. 18-02-2013. Exhibit 198 was moved by the C.B.I. on 06-06-2023, i.e. after almost a decade from the date of seizure of the vehicle. The learned Trial Court, though allowed the vehicle to be handed over in the custody of non-applicant No. 1, wife of Vijay Patel, who was stated to be the owner of the vehicle, however, imposed the condition of making the vehicle functional and submitting a report to the Court. However, it appears that, while imposing the aforesaid condition, the learned Trial Court failed to take into consideration the material fact that the registration of the said vehicle had already expired on 26-06-2022. In view of the said circumstance, the condition requiring the vehicle to be made functional and a report to that effect to be submitted to the Court could not have been issued without first considering the status of the registration of the vehicle. Since the aforesaid material aspect has not been considered by the learned Trial Court, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to remit the matter back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration. The parties can be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the aforesaid aspect and pass an appropriate order afresh on the application filed by the C.B.I., in accordance with law after obtaining say of the Regional Transport Office, if found necessary.

Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle is lying with the CBI for almost a decade, and that the CBI has filed the application after nearly ten years seeking a direction to release the vehicle in favour of the non-applicant No. 1- Yogeeta Patel. The non-applicant No. 1- Yogeeta Patel shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for seeking compensation during the pendency of Exhibit-198, which is again directed to be decided afresh. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:

The revision application is partly allowed and is accordingly disposed of.

The parties are direct to appear before the Trial Court on 15-09-2026. Since the application is pending before the Trial Court from long time, the learned Special Court under C.B.I. is directed to decide Exhibit-198 afresh within two months from the date of appearance.

Rule is made partly absolute.