Excerpt
The Petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the order passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, dismissing the Petitioner’s application for release of his vehicle (Rexton Car) bearing Registration No. JK02BH-0120. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition by allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order by stating that it was essential to release the seized property to save it from getting damaged or devalued.
Background
The Petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, whereby the Petitioner’s application for release of his vehicle (Rexton Car) bearing Registration No. JK02BH-0120 was dismissed.
According to the Petitioner, he has been falsely implicated by the Respondent in FIR No. 32/2015 for offences under Sections 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, he contended that the Respondent has seized numerous vehicles claimed to be Benami properties of the Petitioner, including the vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02BH-0120 in connection with the investigation of the said FIR.
It was asserted that when the actual lawful owners of the aforesaid seized vehicles approached the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, these vehicles were released by the said Court in their favour. However, when the Petitioner approached the same court seeking release of the vehicle, the same was dismissed vide the impugned order.
Arguments Before the Court
The Petitioner challenged the impugned order because the seizure of the vehicle in question was not following the law. He further contended that the Petitioner, being the lawful owner of the vehicle in question-based on documents placed on record, was entitled to the possession of the vehicle in question on Supardari. Furthermore, the observations made by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, while rejecting the Petitioner’s application were against the record and the legal position. He also contended that the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, has failed to appreciate that allowing the vehicle to remain in possession of the Respondent would damage the vehicle in question.
The Respondent, however, resisted the application by filing a reply thereto. He submitted that during the investigation of the FIR in question, it was found that the Petitioner had purchased several luxurious vehicles, including the vehicle which was the subject matter of the instant petition, and that all the vehicles were the Benami property of the Petitioner. It was contended that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of Amarjeet Singh S/o S. Gurdev Singh, but the Petitioner has paid the cost of the said vehicle through the bank account of his wife, which showed that the vehicle in question was Benami property of the Petitioner. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner purchased the vehicle in question from his ill-gotten wealth. It was further averred during the investigation of the case that the Petitioner has raised assets by almost 700%, which were grossly disproportionate to his legal source of income.
Court’s Observations
The Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, including the impugned order. The Court observed that the ground for not releasing the vehicle in question was that the source of financing for purchasing the vehicle in question was under severe doubt and that the release of the vehicle at that stage may come in the way of smooth investigation of the case. According to the learned Judge, even the documents based on which the Petitioner was claiming himself to be the vehicle owner were doubtful.
The Court stated that the seized vehicle could not be allowed to remain in the Respondent’s custody for an indefinite period lest it would only result in depreciation of the vehicle’s value and it would serve nobody’s interest. Moreover, if the Respondent finds that the vehicle in question is not purchased out of ill-gotten wealth after investigation of the case, a grave prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner in that eventuality. The Court held that it was the learned Special Judge’s duty to pass all such orders as necessary to preserve the seized property from being damaged and achieve the objective mentioned above to release the vehicle on an interim basis. Hence, the Court held the impugned to be not sustainable in law and said that the same deserves to be set aside.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that it was essential that the aforesaid seized property was released in favour of the Petitioner on Supurdnama to prevent it from getting damaged or devalued. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The Court further directed the interim custody of the vehicle in question to be given to the Petitioner subject to furnishing an undertaking incorporating the following conditions:
- That he will not dispose of the vehicle;
- That he will not change its colour or complexion in any manner and
- That he will produce the vehicle before the trial court or before the investigating agency as and when directed.
The petition stood disposed of accordingly.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE JUDGEMENT.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
