# Rajendra Kumar Karanwal v. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1203
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 9693 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-karanwal-v-smt-kamlesh-garg-and-others-40762
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-451Release of Vehicle-applicant submitted
with No objection certificate affidavits of
other
heirs-District
Magistrate
also
forwarded the report for release of
vehicle-rejection
held-Magistrate
committed gross error-No good reason
assigned
for
rejection
of
release
application, impugned order Quashed
with direction to the Magistrate to
release the Bus within period of one
week.
Held: Para 3 & 4

The Magistrate committed a gross error
in rejecting the application, even though
all the documents were produced before
him including fact was brought to the
notice that the permit stands transferred
in the name of the present applicant.

After taking the entire matter into
consideration, I come to the conclusion
that the order of the Magistrate dated
1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No
good reason has been assigned for
refusing the prayer for release of the
bus.
Accordingly,
the
order
dated
1.7.2005 is quashed. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jhansi is directed to release
the bus within a period of one week from
the date, a certified copy of this order is
produced
before
him
after
taking
adequate guarantee/ security of the bus
from the applicant Rajiv Agarwal.
Case law discussed:
2003 (46) ACC-223
2004 (48) ACC-605
2003 (47) ACC-1086

## Text

4 All] Rajendra Kumar Karanwal V. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others
1203
for depositing rent of the premises under
their tenancy. The said application was
registered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 1989.
The
respondent-landlord
filed
an
objection to the aforesaid application filed
by dated 22.11.1996 held that there is
relationship of the landlord and tenant
between the parties and directed the
tenant to handover the amount of rent to
the landlord and directed the landlord to
give the receipt of the same and further
observed that if the landlords refuse to
accept the rent, the tenant will deposit the
same in the court. The respondentlandlord aggrieved by the aforesaid order
preferred a revision being Civil Revision
No. 11 of 1997 in the court of District
Judge under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure who vide its order dated
24.3.2003 allowed the revision and set
aside the order of the Civil Judge and
rejected the application filed by the tenant
under Section 30 (1). Thus, this writ
petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that under the provisions of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 no revision or
appeal lies before any authority or court
against the order passed by the Civil
Court under Section 30 (1) U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972. Thus, the revision was not
maintainable and the order of the
revisional court entertaining the revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is wholly without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petition relied
upon the decision of this Court reported in
2002 (2) ARC 562; Anwar Ali Versus
Additional District Judge, Moradabad
and others wherein this Court has held
that no appeal or revision lay against the
order passed by the Munsif under Section
30 (1) of decision this writ petition
deserves to be allowed and the order of
the revisional court deserves to be
quashed.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has relied upon the full Bench
decision of this court reported in 1964
All. L.J. 256; Chatur Mohan and others
Versus Ram Behari Dixit. The Full
Bench decision relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent is under the
provisions of the old Act and there is no
pari material provision under old Act like
section 30 (1). In view of the provisions
of Section 30 (1) and in view of the
decision of Anwar Ali (supra), in my
opinion, the revisional court has acted
beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition is allowed. The
order of the revisional court dated
24.3.2003 is quashed. The parties shall
bear their respective costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 9693 of
2005

Rajiv Agrawal

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vinod Prasad

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-451Release of Vehicle-applicant submitted
with No objection certificate affidavits of
other
heirs-District
Magistrate
also
forwarded the report for release of
vehicle-rejection
held-Magistrate
committed gross error-No good reason
assigned
for
rejection
of
release
application, impugned order Quashed
with direction to the Magistrate to
release the Bus within period of one
week.
Held: Para 3 & 4

The Magistrate committed a gross error
in rejecting the application, even though
all the documents were produced before
him including fact was brought to the
notice that the permit stands transferred
in the name of the present applicant.

After taking the entire matter into
consideration, I come to the conclusion
that the order of the Magistrate dated
1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No
good reason has been assigned for
refusing the prayer for release of the
bus.
Accordingly,
the
order
dated
1.7.2005 is quashed. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jhansi is directed to release
the bus within a period of one week from
the date, a certified copy of this order is
produced
before
him
after
taking
adequate guarantee/ security of the bus
from the applicant Rajiv Agarwal.
Case law discussed:
2003 (46) ACC-223
2004 (48) ACC-605
2003 (47) ACC-1086

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Prakash
Advocate for the applicant and learned
A.G.A. for the State. On the agreement
between the parties, this application is
finally heard.

2. This is an application challenging
the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in a
Misc. Application No. Nil of 2005 in a
case, State Vs. Mangal Singh, under
Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 I.P.C.
read with Section 179 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, Police Station Nababad,
District Jhansi, arising out of case Crime
No. 1224 of 2005. The learned Magistrate
has refused to release the vehicle No.
DLP 5240 in favour of the applicant. The
vehicle was registered in the name of Smt.
Kapoori Devi, wife of Gauri Shanker
Agarwal. A carriage permit No. PHTP
55/68 was issued in respect of the vehicle
which is a bus of 1992 model. Smt.
Kapoori Devi was grandmother of the
applicant. Smt. Kapoori Devi died and all
the family members had agreed amongst
themselves that the vehicle be transferred
in the name of the applicant. Affidavits
were filed in favour of the applicant by
the family members which was in form of
a no objection/consent for transfer of
permit. The affidavits have been annexed
as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. However,
the vehicle met an accident on 19.6.2005
in respect of which a first information
report was registered at case Crime No.
1224 of 2005. The applicant applied for
release of the vehicle vide application
dated 21.6.2005 which is annexed as
Annexure-3 to the affidavit. A report was
called for in respect of the vehicle under
the orders of the District Magistrate/
Collector, Jhansi regarding actual and
legal heir of Smt. Kapoori Devi. Tehsildar
inquired into the matter and submitted a
report. Annexure-4 is a letter issued by
the District Magistrate, Jhansi to the
Secretary U.P.S.R.T.C. apprising him that
the Tehsildar has submitted a report on
3.6.2005 that the permit PHTP 55/86 STA
State/96 and vehicle No. DLIP No. 5240
Model 1992 is to be transferred in the
name of the present applicant. The vehicle
was also being run under his supervision.
4 All] Rajiv Agrawal V. State of U.P.
1205
The report of the Tehsildar was appended
to the letter of the District Magistrate. All
these documents were brought on record
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jhansi and he was also apprised of the fact
that on the basis of no objection issued by
other heirs of late Smt. Kapoori Devi,
permit of the vehicle stood transferred in
the name of the applicant. The tax receipts
of the vehicle were also submitted in the
name of the applicant but the learned
Magistrate rejected the application vide
order dated 1.7.2005 for the reason that
there are six children of late Smt. Kapoori
Devi and the registration is not in the
name of the applicant, he can not be said
to be the sole owner of the vehicle.
Accordingly he refused to release it in his
favour, hence this application.

3. I have gone through the record as
well as the impugned order. The Apex
Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat,
2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 has clearly held
that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised expeditiously and
judiciously.
It would serve various
purposes:- (i) Owner of the article would
not suffer because of its remaining
unused,(ii) Court or the police would not
be required to keep the article in safe
custody, (iii) If the proper panchnama
before handing over article is prepared,
that can be used in evidence instead of its
production before the court during the
trial, if necessary, (iv) 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. The Apex Court has clearly held
that appropriate orders should 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. Mohd. Shamim Khan
Vs. State of U.P., 2004, A.C.C. (48),
605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak Vs. State
of Jharkhand, 2004, Criminal Law
Journal, 2450, it was held 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. In Gurnam Singh and another
Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47)
A.C.C., 1086, it was held 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,
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. In the instant case, the
counsel for the applicant has brought to
my notice that two wheels of the standing
bus has been removed by someone and in
the event, the vehicle is not released, each
and every part will go one by one but for
the metallic frame of the bus. The
admitted position in the present case is
that all the heirs of the actual owners in
whose name the vehicle was registered,
have filed their affidavits/ no objection
certificate. The District Magistrate has
also got the matter enquired through the
Tehsildar and informed the UPSRTC as
such it is evident that the learned
Magistrate should have released the bus
after taking appropriate precaution in
form of bonds or security. The Magistrate
committed a gross error in rejecting the
application,
even
though
all
the
documents were produced before him
including fact was brought to the notice
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
that the permit stands transferred in the
name of the present applicant.

4. After taking the entire matter into
consideration, I come to the conclusion
that the order of the Magistrate dated
1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No good
reason has been assigned for refusing the
prayer for release of the bus. Accordingly,
the order dated 1.7.2005 is quashed. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi is
directed to release the bus within a period
of one week from the date; a certified
copy of this order is produced before him
after taking adequate guarantee/ security
of the bus from the applicant Rajiv
Agarwal.

5. For the reasons discussed above,
this application is finally allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Special Appeal No. 615 Of 2005

Ram Kesh Yadav and another

...Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation
of India and another
...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.C. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Gupta

Constitution
of
India
Art
226Compassionate
appointment-Food
Corporation of India- by eivender Dt.
2.2.77 as modified on 3.7.96- provides
voluntary retirement of those workers
within the age limit of 55 years-and to
give
appointment
on
compassionate
ground to one of the dependent of such
worker-by impugned order the request
for voluntary retirement accepted but
compassionate
appointment
turned
down- held -on technical ground such
claim can not be rejected.

Held: Para 4

We are of the view that once the
respondents have accepted the request
for retirement of the employee under the
aforesaid scheme on medical grounds
then they are obliged to consider the
claim of giving appointment to the
dependent of such employee/worker and
his request cannot be turned down on
some technical ground. That apart the
controversy
being
covered
by
the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, this special appeal also deserves
to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 579 of 05 Decided on
11.5.05-relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. This appeal arises from the order
of the learned Single Judge dated
29.03.2005 dismissing the writ petition of
the appellant.

2. We have heard Sri R.C. Gupta,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents.

3. The short facts giving rise to this
appeal is that the father of the appellant
no. 1 who is also the appellant no. 2 was
working as handling labour in the office
of Food Storage Depot at Azamgarh
under the Food Corporation of India. The
Food Corporation of India issued a
circular dated 02.02.1977. It was modified
by circular dated 03.07.1996. The said