Matadin Sharma vs The King

Meredith, J.—On the night of the 28th August 1947, the petitioner''s son-in-law was driving a truck bearing, No. B.R.L. 658 with some bundles of yarn when he was arrested and taken with the truck and the yarn to the Deoghar Police station. On the following morning, a first information report was lodged for smuggling yarn,. It is further claimed on behalf of the Crown that after the first information report was lodged an unlicensed revolver and some live cartridges-were found in the truck, and a case was started also under the Arms Act.

The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the truck applied on 27th September 1947, to the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, for the release of the truck with the tools etc, contained therein of which he gave a list. No order having been passed, he renewed his application on 29th November, and the Sub-divisional Officer then direct, ed the release of the truck on execution of a bond of Rs. 4,000/. The petitioner duly executed this bond, and it was accepted by the Sub-divisional Officer. Thereafter the petitioner repeated, by attempted to secure the release of his truck, but was always put off on one excuse or another, and eventually failing to obtain any satisfaction, he has come to this Court. He points out that he is a businessman, and the detention of his truck since August last, it being now April, last put him to heavy loss, and he is'' not an accused in the case, that the car is being kept accorded for, and he apprehends that the machinery must be deteriorating. An order having 1 been passed for the release of the truck upon '' security, and the security having been furnished, here could be no excuse for retaining it.

In his report to this Court the learned Sub-divisional Officer says that the order for release was in connection with the yarn smuggling case, but the car was required as an exhibit an the Arms Act case, and was being retained for that purpose.

In view of this explanation it is evident that the detention, if legal at all, must be u/s 516-A, Criminal P.C. The order for detention must be understood as an order under that section, though it would have been better if the learned Sub-divisional Officer had expressly stated that he was detaining the car u/s 516-A. However it may be, as an order u/s 516-A it was neither proper nor reasonable, particular by in view of the fact that a previous order for release had been passed upon security which had been furnished. The proceedings have been gravely delayed, and it is not at all fair or just ] that the truck of a businessman should be detained in this way for nearly nine months merely for use as an exhibit in the case. As security has been taken, there is no fear that the petitioner will not produce the car when it is required, if it really is required, for making it an exhibit. I cannot allow this order to stand. It is, therefore, set aside, and the car must be released at once upon the security already furnished and accepted. I must enjoin upon this Magistrate the necessity of always taking care that orders passed do not, as in the present case, present the appearance of being arbitrary or capricious or not passed under any specific provision of law.