AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner finance company has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition seeking to assail the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.248/2018 whereby, while accepting the misc. application filed by
the petitioner finance company, the trial court directed that the company would be at liberty to auction the Truck No.RJ14 CG 7757 which had been
handed over to it under Supurdginama vide order dated 17.04.2017 but while so directing, a condition was imposed that the sale price received after
open auction shall be invested in a fixed deposit which shall be handed over to the Court. The petitioner finance company is aggrieved by the said
condition imposed in the impugned order.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Dhanesh Saraswat learned counsel representing the petitioner finance company and
the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the impugned order.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been held entitled to possession of the above referred vehicle which was seized during the course of investigation of FIR
No.23/2016 registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 396 IPC with an allegation that chemical looted
from the complainant was transported in the subject matter truck which was financed by the petitioner-company to the accused. The vehicle was
given to the petitioner finance company on Supurdginama in the year 2017. Since then it is lying exposed to the elements in the yard of the petitioner
company and its condition and value are being deteriorated day by day. The trial court has permitted the petitioner company to sell the vehicle. The
accused chose not to contest the applications for custody and sale filed by the petitioner-company. As the trial is being proceeded under an I.P.C.
offence, there is no eventuality of the vehicle being forfeited in favour of the State. Hence, I am of the firm opinion that the direction given by the trial
court that the petitioner-company shall invest the sale proceeds of the vehicle in a fixed deposit and then the same shall be handed over to the court, is
totally uncalled for, unjust and unduly onerous. As a consequence, the impugned order cannot be sustained to that extent.
The Misc. Petition is thus accepted. The condition imposed in the impugned order that the petitioner-company shall invest the sale proceedings of the
vehicle in a fixed deposit and which shall in turn be handed over to the court, is hereby struck down as being unjust and arbitrary. Instead, the
petitioner-company shall furnish an undertaking in the trial court that if it is felt that the value of the vehicle is to be paid to the State or to the accused
although only a faintest possibility suggests it, then in such a situation, the petitioner finance company shall deposit the said amount in the court as
directed.