# Mrs. Salma Aijaz /Revisionist v. The State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1234 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2005-11-08 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4394 of 2005 - **Bench:** Shiv Shanker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mrs-salma-aijaz-revisionist-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40781 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183, 451-Release of Vehicle-truck duringcourse of journey from Indore to Varanasi-looted within the jurisdiction of Police Station Karvi-Application for release of Vehicle-Rejected by the Magistrate Chitrakoot on the ground of want of jurisdiction-held-illegal-direction issued for release of vehicle after taking adequate security. Held: Para 8 The truck in question was taken from Indore to Varanasi and it was looted and the same was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) and, therefore, the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application on merits of the case according to the provisions of Section 183 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the court below has committed the illegality in passing the impugned order. Case law discussed: 2003 (46) ACC-223 2004 ACC (48) 605 2003 ACC (47) 1086 2005 (3) JIC-42 Alld. ## Text 1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005 has been held that Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act empowers High Courts to frame rules laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and Courts subordinate thereto. It has been held that the power under Section 34 of the Advocates Act is similar to the power under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. It is held that other Sections of the Advocates Act cannot be read in a manner which would render Section 34 ineffective." 36. It must be noted that Courts are not powerless or helpless. Section 38 of the Advocates Act provides that even in disciplinary matters the final Appellate Authority is the Supreme Court. Thus even if the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for nonappearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an Appeal the Supreme Court can and will,. apart from this, as set out in Romans Services' case, every Court now should and must mulct. Advocates who hold Vakalats but still refrain from attending Courts in pursuance of a strike call with costs,. Such costs would be in addition to the damages which the Advocate may have to pay for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance. 27. Advocate is an officer of the Court. He is an indispensable constituent of the 'justice delivery system'. He enjoys special status by virtue of his being enrolled as Advocate. He enjoys privileged position in Court (as well as in public). In High Court he is provided place to sit in Court premises. High Court has given large accommodation in the High Court Building to High Court Bar Association for chambers, canteen etc. High Court holds references/ condolences on the request made by the High Court Bar Association, and these proceedings are Court proceedings. 28. There is no dispute or doubt that Writ Petition lies against Respondent No.1/Registrar, Societies Registration who is responsible for proper functioning of a 'Society' (registered under Societies Registration Act) including High Court Bar Association. Similarly, Writ Petition lie against Respondent nos. 5,6,7, 8 & 9. 29. The question, as to what extent this court can issue 'Writ' against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, shall be seen while hearing and deciding the case finally on merit. 30. Objections, regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition are not tenable at this stage. 31. These objections shall, however, be dealt finally in detail while deciding the Writ Petition on merit. Prima facie Writ Petition is maintainable. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER, J. Criminal Revision No. 4394 of 2005 Mrs. Salma Aijaz ...Applicant/Revisionist Versus The State of U.P. and others ...Opposite Parties 4 All] Mrs. Salma Aijaz V. The State of U.P. and others 1235 Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri J.A. Khan Sri Afzal Durrani Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Kushwaha A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183, 451-Release of Vehicle-truck duringcourse of journey from Indore to Varanasi-looted within the jurisdiction of Police Station Karvi-Application for release of Vehicle-Rejected by the Magistrate Chitrakoot on the ground of want of jurisdiction-held-illegal-direction issued for release of vehicle after taking adequate security. Held: Para 8 The truck in question was taken from Indore to Varanasi and it was looted and the same was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) and, therefore, the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application on merits of the case according to the provisions of Section 183 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the court below has committed the illegality in passing the impugned order. Case law discussed: 2003 (46) ACC-223 2004 ACC (48) 605 2003 ACC (47) 1086 2005 (3) JIC-42 Alld. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, J.) 1. This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 24.9.2005 passed in release application no. nil of 2005, State Vs. Unknown, under Section 41 Cr.P.C./411 I.P.C., P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot whereby the release application of the applicant revisionist was rejected on the ground of beyond jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts, arising out of the case are that on 18.7.2005 the truck bearing no. U.P. 70/AT 2262 was booked by Delhi Assam Roadways Indore and plastic granule was loaded on the truck of the applicant for the transportation to the destination of District Varanasi. In the way of transportation of goods the second driver Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla had badly injured the driver Harish Chandra with an intention to commit loot fled away with loaded truck in question on 19.7.2005. He was admitted in the hospital by visible persons. In this regard a first information was lodged at police station Bareili, District Raisen (M.P.). On 25.7.2005, the applicant got a telephonic message from unknown person that his truck was lying in the area of the police station Karvi, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) and as such the applicant revisionist rushed to site and found that the truck was found unloaded and on an enquiry, it was informed that the second driver Kamlesh Kumar Shukla fled away with the goods of truck towards Rajapur. The applicant informed this fact to the concerned police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot and the truck was brought to the police station Karvi with the help of police and by the joint efforts of the police personnel, the goods were also recovered under the limits of police station Rajapur and was also taken by the police in its custody and a report was lodged in this regard at P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot on 29.7.2005 which was registered as Case Crime No. Nil of 2005 under Sections 392/412 I.P.C.. 3. The truck in question was purchased by applicant and the same was registered with the registering authority in his name after taking financial assistance 1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005 from I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. and the same was hypothecated with the aforesaid bank. 4. Thereafter, the release application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate Chitrakoot on 3.8.2005 which was rejected on the ground that Court of Chitrakoot has no jurisdiction to decide the release application regarding the release of truck in question by his order dated 24.9.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant revisionist has preferred this criminal revision in this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned court below has wrongly rejected the release application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application as the truck was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi where it was taken into custody by the police. It is further contended that if the truck in question is not released then the truck will be became decay and great hardship is to be caused to the applicant revisionist and that the applicant will be unable to pay the installments of the concerned bank. The truck is lying in the police custody from July, 2005, on the other hand, it is urged that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality in rejecting the release application. 6. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 7. It has been provided under Section 183 Cr.P.C. that when an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage. 8. The truck in question was taken from Indore to Varanasi and it was looted and the same was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) and, therefore, the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application on merits of the case according to the provisions of Section 183 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the court below has committed the illegality in passing the impugned order. 9. It has been laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223 that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. It would serve various purpose 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 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. This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be 4 All] Smt. Srikanti Nishad V. State of U.P. and others 1237 further chance of tampering with the articles. 10. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders would be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period would only result in decay of the article. The Court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well in Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2004 ACC (48), 605. 11. It was held in the case of Tulsi Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Criminal Law Journal 2450, that truck lying in the police station for more than one year resulted in heavy loss of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the High Court permitted to release of the vehicle. It was held in Gurnam Singh and another vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47) A.C.C. 1086, that what so ever the situation be, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station or Court campus for a long period and the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. The above principles have been followed by this Court in Rajeev Agarwal vs. State of U.P., 2005 (3) JIC 42 (All). 12. After taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncement, I am of the opinion that the truck in question is liable to be released in favour of the applicantrevisionist who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that this revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 14. The revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is directed to the court below to release the vehicle in question after taking adequate security with an undertaking that as and when the vehicle in question is required, the same will be produced in District Court or in any other Court. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49394 of 2004 Smt. Srikanti Nishad ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.N. Singh Sri Vishnu Pratap S.C. Constitution of India, Art. 226-Grant of mining lease-Petitioner discovered new area of mining-applied for grant of leaseApplication remained pending for 8 years-decided only after interference of High Court-the G.O. dated 26-5-95 relied by petitioner-modified by subsequent G.O. dated 16-10-04-those who discovered new mines-during this period -not inpleaded-No mala-fide allegation against the authority-court declined to interfere.