# Meva Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 460
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-04-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5553 of 2013
- **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meva-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42871
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Release of
vehicle-offence under section 3/7 E.C.
Act-rejected by Court below-as Truck in
question carrying 400 bags uria-on
patrolling
police
found
uria
bags
unloaded from truck and loaded with
tractor
trolly-nothing
whisper
about
knowledge of any illegal activities of
driver-in view of law laid down by Apex
Court in case of Surendra Bhai Ambalal
Desai-Truck still standing police station
with 400 bags uria un-attand getting
junk day by day-no useful purpose to
remain with police station-order by
Court
below
quashed-direction
for
release given.
Held:Para-12
The facts of the case in hand show that
the truck of the petitioner was seized on
7.9.2012 and it is still standing in the
premises of Police Station Bindki, District
Fatehpur unattended getting junk day by
day, which situation is in clear violation
of the law laid down by Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai (Supra) case cited above.

Case Law Discussed:
{2003(1) JIC 615(SC)}

## Text

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

as post retirement benefits shall be paid
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Sitapur within a period of four months
from the date of service of this order,
failing which interest @ 6% shall be paid
from the date of termination.

33. The writ petition is allowed with
all consequential benefits.

34. Costs assessed as Rs.50,000/- to
be paid by the Committee of Management
respondent no. 3.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5553 of 2013

Meva Lal............................ Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors....... .......Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Shukla, Sri S.C. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Release of
vehicle-offence under section 3/7 E.C.
Act-rejected by Court below-as Truck in
question carrying 400 bags uria-on
patrolling
police
found
uria
bags
unloaded from truck and loaded with
tractor
trolly-nothing
whisper
about
knowledge of any illegal activities of
driver-in view of law laid down by Apex
Court in case of Surendra Bhai Ambalal
Desai-Truck still standing police station
with 400 bags uria un-attand getting
junk day by day-no useful purpose to
remain with police station-order by
Court
below
quashed-direction
for
release given.
Held:Para-12
The facts of the case in hand show that
the truck of the petitioner was seized on
7.9.2012 and it is still standing in the
premises of Police Station Bindki, District
Fatehpur unattended getting junk day by
day, which situation is in clear violation
of the law laid down by Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai (Supra) case cited above.

Case Law Discussed:
{2003(1) JIC 615(SC)}

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of two
orders first dated 19.11.2012 passed by the
District Magistrate, Fatehpur and the second
dated 12.3.2013 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur,
refusing to release the truck of the petitioner
bearing No.UP-70 BT 8968 seized under
section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.

2. Apart from praying for a writ of
certiorari for quashing both the aforesaid
orders the petitioner has also prayed to
issue writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to release the Truck No. UP70 BT 8968 in his favour.

3. The respondent no. 4 Zila Krishi
Adhikari,
District
Fatehpur
and
respondent No. 6 Sub-Inspector Lallan
Singh have filed counter affidavits, which
are on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned AGA appearing on
behalf of respondents.

5. Some background facts in brief
are that on 7.9.2012 at about 9-10 p.m.
when the police was on patrolling duty,
Truck No. UP-70 BT 8968 loaded with
400 bags of urea fertilizers of IFFCO was
1 All] Meva Lal Vs. State of U.P & Ors.

461
found standing on Marhara road near Palesar
factory belonging to one Pappu @ Surya
Pratap Singh. The bags of urea after being
unloaded from the aforesaid truck were being
loaded into a tractor trolley. When the truck
Driver Lal Chandra Patel and assistant
Driver Indrajeet Bhatia were enquired by the
police about the loading of urea from the
truck into tractor trolley, they informed that a
bilty of 400 bags of IFFCO urea fertilizer
was given to Om Prakash Singh in-charge of
IFFCO Godown, Bindki, but he sent Pappu
Singh @ Surya Prakash Singh who was
unloading the aforesaid fertilizer into the
tractor. The authorities were informed that
the urea was being unloaded for the purpose
of black marketting. FIR was lodged against
Om Prakash Singh, Pappu @ Surya Pratap
Singh and driver and assistant driver of the
truck. Criminal case was registered and the
truck along with urea was confiscated under
the direction of Tehsildar.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is the valid owner
of the truck. He has no concern with black
marketing of urea fertilizer. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the entire
prosecution story is concocted. The real facts
are that in the night of 7.9.2012 when his
Truck No. UP-70 BT 8968 was going towards
IFFCO Bindki Godown, in the way at
Marhara road, the truck got punctured and the
driver was told that puncture can be repaired
only at Bindki. Meanwhile, Inspector Lallan
Singh (respondent no.6) reached there along
with one Constable Rajan Singh and enquired
about the truck. He started demanding illegal
gratification and on refusal, got a false and
fictitious
FIR
registered
resulting
in
confiscation of his truck.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that according to the FIR
when the truck was seized the bags of urea
were found being unloaded from truck into a
tractor trolley but neither the tractor trolley
was seized nor it has been mentioned as to
how many bags of urea were found loaded on
the tractor-trolley and how many bags were
remained in the truck. The truck is still
standing in the premises of police station
loaded with 400 bags of urea. Learned
counsel has submitted that all these facts
clearly show that the entire story has been
manipulated by the Sub-Inspector. After
knowing that his truck has been kept at P.S.
Bindki, Fatehpur, the petitioner moved an
application for its release but the learned
District Magistrate without any sufficient
ground rejected the release application of the
petitioner by the order impugned dated
19.12.2012. Against the order passed by the
District Magistrate, the appeal no.113 of 2012
was filed by the petitioner before District &
Sessions Judge.The District & Sessions Judge
also dismissed his appeal by order dated
12.3.2013. The petitioner had no knowledge
that the driver of the truck has done any illegal
act so there was no "mensrea" on his part but
in both the impugned orders, there is not even
a whisper about the fact that the petitioner had
any knowledge that the driver has done any
illegal act.The petitioner is not named as an
accused in the FIR, he is ready to comply with
the conditions imposed by the authority
concerned so his petition be allowed and the
respondents be directed to release his Truck
No. UP-70 BT 8968.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has
opposed the petition and has submitted that
both the courts below have passed a legal
order which are not liable to be set aside.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned AGA for the
State, this Court is of the view that the
instant writ petition deserves to be
allowed for the following reasons:-.
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The impugned order shows that
there is no dispute regarding the fact that
petitioner is the owner of Truck No. UP-70
BT 8968. The District Magistrate has refused
to release the truck only on the ground that
the truck concerned is the case property.
Learned appellate court has also dismissed
the criminal appeal filed by the owner of the
truck (petitioner) on the same ground. It
appears that both the courts below, while
passing the impugned order have become
oblivious
of
the
well
settled
legal
proposition, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai and C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat
{2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC) in which the Apex
court has observed as under :-

"In police station premises seized
vehicles are kept unattended and all those
vehicles become junked day by day. There is
no use to keep such seized vehicles at the
police station for a long period and the
Magistrate should pass appropriate orders
immediately for the release of those vehicles
after taking appropriate bond and guarantee
for the return of the said vehicles if required
by the Court at any point of time"

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
directed the Magistrate to follow the procedure
provided u/s 451 and Section 457 Cr.P.C.
regarding seized property by observing as
under:-

"In our view, the powers under
Section 451 Cr.P.C. 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 panchnama before
handing over possession or 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) This jurisdiction of the Court to
record evidence should be exercised
promptly so that there may not be further
chance of tampering with the articles....."

"We
hope
and
trust
that
the
concerned
Magistrate
would
take
immediate action for seeing that powers
under section 451 Cr.P.C. 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 15
days to one month."

12. The facts of the case in hand
show that the truck of the petitioner was
seized on 7.9.2012 and it is still standing
in the premises of Police Station Bindki,
District Fatehpur unattended getting junk
day by day, which situation is in clear
violation of the law laid down by
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) case
cited above.

13. No purpose is going to be served
in keeping the truck remain at police
station hence the writ petition is allowed.

14. The order dated 19.11.2012
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur and the order dated 12.3.2013
passed
by
Additional
District
and
Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur are
hereby quashed.

15. The respondents are directed to
release the Truck No. UP-70 BT 8968 in
favour of the petitioner immediately after
1 All] Om Prakash Rai Vs. State of U.P & Ors.

463
taking
appropriate
bond
guarantee,
security and undertaking to produce the
said vehicles as and when required at any
point of time by the court concerned. So
far as 400 bags of IFFCO urea is
concerned, no purpose is going to be
served in retaining those urea bags at the
premises of police station in the open
therefore the respondents are directed to
dispose of the urea bags according to the
guide lines given by the Apex court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case (Supra).
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6034 of 2014

Om Prakash Rai.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. .......Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Vinod Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Withdrawl of
personal security-under threat perceptionpetitioner getting security-withdrawl in
Dec.
2013-petitioner
being
practicing
advocate-involving
criminal
activities-in
absence of definition of 'threat perception
in any government order-Court no role to
play-should

be
assessed
by
state
investigation Agencies-keeping in view of
Gaur Hasan case as well as directions
contained in PIL-no interference called forpetition dismissed.

Held:Para-18
We also find that the respondents were
justified in downgrading the security and
providing security only for the purpose of
taking the petitioner from his residence
to the Court and back. In the light of the
aforesaid, we do not find any reason to
interfere in the action of the State.

Case Law Discussed:
2009(1) ACR 515; W.P. No. 6509 of 2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri Ravi Prakash
Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner is an advocate in
Sonebhadra.
On
1.05.2012,
the
petitioner's son was murdered, in which
the petitioner is an eye-witness. For this
incident a first information report was
lodged and upon investigation, chargesheet was filed. A Special Operation
Group (SOG) arrested certain persons on
30th
September,
2012
and
during
interrogation, it was found that these
persons were planning to kill the
petitioner.
Another
first
information
report was lodged and based on this
information, security was provided to the
petitioner from October, 2012 which
continued till December, 2013, when it
was withdrawn. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the withdrawal of the
security has filed the present writ petition
praying for restoration of the gunner
facility, which was provided by way of
security measure.

3. The petitioner contends that the
threat perception is still existing and as
per government orders issued from time
to time, it is the obligation of the State to
protect its citizens and provide security.

4. The State filed a counter affidavit
admitting the averments made in the writ