Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

A K SINGH V/S STATE, decided on Monday, December 12, 2011.
[ In the High Court of Delhi, CRL.M.C. No.4121 of 2011. ] 12/12/2011
Judge(s) : SURESH KAIT
Advocate(s) : Ajay Kumar. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP State.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  The Director (Admn) National Airport Authority of India Versus Shri Suresh Kumar,   20/06/2017.  

  Ashok Bind Versus The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),   20/06/2017.  

  Badshah Versus State,   20/06/2017.  

  S.E.B.I. Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Others,   19/06/2017.  

  Allokam Peddabbayya & Another Versus Allahabad Bank & Others,   19/06/2017.  

  Avishek Raja & Others Versus Sanjay Gupta,   19/06/2017.  

  M/s. Agrozan India Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Agritrade India Services Pvt. Ltd.,   19/06/2017.  

  Wasim Ahmed & Others Versus State,   16/06/2017.  

  No. JC-E/380049A Dipak Chakrabarty, Subedar (B & R) Versus The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others,   15/06/2017.  

  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus State of West Bengal & Others,   15/06/2017.  

  Rajasthan Housing Board Through Sy. Housing Commissioner, Jaipur Circle-II, Jaipur Rajasthan Versus Santosh Kumar Hakim,   14/06/2017.  

  Sqn Ldr Darshana Sonkar (No.29582-L) Versus UOI & Others,   14/06/2017.  

  Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA), represented by its Secretary Versus Thomas Abraham & Others,   14/06/2017.  

  Suo Motu represented by The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) Versus The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economics Affairs, New Delhi & Others,   14/06/2017.  

  The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Rev. Dr. P.B. Amolik & Others,   14/06/2017.  

  Ganpatrao Chhotuji Gabhane & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department & Another,   14/06/2017.  

  Gopal & Others Versus State (Govt of NCT Delhi),   13/06/2017.  

  Hussainali Sharif Punjwani Others Versus The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay & Others,   13/06/2017.  

  R. Solairaj Versus The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, & Others,   13/06/2017.  

  Association of Private Medicaland Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others,   13/06/2017.  

  Abdul Samad Versus Rasheedha & Another,   12/06/2017.  

  Pradip Dey Biswas & Another Versus Prasenjit Sarkar & Others,   12/06/2017.  

  Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Versus The Andheri Recreation Club & Others,   12/06/2017.  

  Sheo Prakash Gupta & Another Versus Kanpur Development Authority Through Its Chairman, Motijheel, Kanpur,   12/06/2017.  

  Mohit Kumar Agarwal & Others Versus State of Sikkim,   12/06/2017.  

  Manjit Singh, Managing Director Touchwood Aviation Acadamy & Another Versus Vishal Shadangi,   12/06/2017.  

  Ahok Kr. Todi & Others Versus C.B.I. & Others,   12/06/2017.  

  M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd.,   09/06/2017.  

  Satish Nirankari Versus State of Rajasthan,   09/06/2017.  

  IATA Agents Association of India (IAAI) rep. by its President, Biji Eapen Versus The Director General of Civil Aviation Technical Centre New Delhi & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  State of Punjab Versus Pargat Singh & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Seema Sudam Auti & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  M/s. Arihant Udhyog Versus State of Rajasthan & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  Union of India & Another Versus M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited & Another,   09/06/2017.  

  Binoy Viswam Versus Union of India & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  Varsha Ramesh Chavan & Others Versus Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Law and Justice Dept. of Legal Affairs of India, Government of India & Others,   09/06/2017.  

  Baljit Kaur Versus M/s. Divine Motors & Another,   08/06/2017.  

  M/s. New Era Fabrics Ltd. Versus Bhanumati Keshrichand & Others,   07/06/2017.  

  N. Ramji Versus Ashwath Narayan Ramji & Another,   07/06/2017.  

  Guna Sindhu Choudhury & Others Versus Subir Chandra Das & Others,   07/06/2017.  

  Raminder Singh Batra Versus Bhakti Shah,   07/06/2017.  

  MSGR.Xavier Chullickal Versus C.G. Raphael,   07/06/2017.  

  Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   07/06/2017.  

  Indubai Jaydeo Pawar & Another Versus Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar & Others,   07/06/2017.  

  K. Raju & Another Versus A. Raja,   07/06/2017.  

  Dr. Anup Kumar Laha Versus The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare & Others,   07/06/2017.  

  Union of India & Others Versus Tarsem Singh,   07/06/2017.  

  State of Punjab Versus Jaswinder Singh,   06/06/2017.  

  R. Sundarraj Versus Dr.K. Krishnasamy, Founder-President, Puthiya Tamilagam Party & Others,   06/06/2017.  

  Ravindra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   06/06/2017.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    Subject:     SURESH KAIT J. (Oral) CRL.M.A. 19177/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.CRL. M.C. 4121/2011 1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 11.01.2011 vehicle of the petitioner was impounded under Section 66 (B) of D.P. Act. On 21.01.2011 petitioner made a complaint to Commissioner of Police Delhi but no action on the complaint of the petitioner has been taken.2. Simultaneously petitioner made a complaint to ACP Vivek Vihar Delhi. Even said ACP did not take action.3. On 14.02.2011 petitioner moved an application dated 14.02.2011 before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic) inter alia praying for the direction to the TI and ACP Vivek Vihar to take photographs of the damaged bus no.DL-IPB-3581 and to prepare an inventory of articles removed from his bus while in the custody of the police to get the damaged assessed from a Govt. approved valuar so that the petitioner would be able to initiate appropriate legal action against the erring officials.4. The trial court vide its order dated 15.02.2011 passed the following order:“TI concerned of VKC and IO/SI Manu Sehrawat from P.S. Vivek Vihar is directed to file the status report on 17.02.2011 at 10.00 a.m. In the meantime the applicant is likely to take photograph of the aforesaid vehicle through any photographer at 11:00 a.m. on 16.02.2011.” 5. Thereafter petitioner moved an application before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate praying for making the inventory of the missing stolen articles of the bus. The same was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2011 saying that same application has already been dismissed by this court. Therefore the said application found to be infructuous.6. On 08.04.2011 the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of damages against the traffic officials of Vivek Vihar Circle and others. Same is pending before ld. ADJ Karkardooma Delhi.7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner also filed a criminal complaint case against the traffic officials and others and the same is pending before ld. M.M. Karkardooma Courts Delhi.8. On 28.04.2011 Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Company of the said vehicle also sent a letter in claim no. 2171/2011 dated 28.04.2011 in response of the claimed application of the petitioner.9. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the Revision Petition before the Sessions Court Karkardooma Court Delhi against the order dated 06.04.2011. Same was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2011.10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 66 (B) of D.P. Act 1978 same is re-produced as under:- “66. Police to take charge of unclaimed property: (1) It shall be the duty of every police officer to take temporary charge- (a) Of all unclaimed property found by or made over to him and (b) Of all property found lying in any public street if the owner or person in charge of such property on being directed to remove the dame refused or fails to do so. (2) The police officer taking charge of the property under Sub-Section. (1) Shall furnish an inventory thereof to the Commissioner of police.” 11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per clause 2 of Section 66 the Police Officer being In-charge of the property under Sub-Section 1 furnish inventory thereof to the Commissioner of Police.12. Admittedly this inventory has not been prepared initially. However the said inventory has been prepared after the order dated 08.09.2011.13. I note the grievance of the petitioner is that after impounding the bus by the traffic police articles of the bus has been stolen or damaged while the bus was in custody of the traffic police.14. For this purpose in fact he wanted to at least prepare the inventory for the purpose of the Insurance claim or to take action against the erring officials. The petitioner has right to take any recourse of the provision of the law if available to him.15. I also note that the first court i.e. Ld. MM has allowed to take the photographs of the bus whereas denied the permission to prepare the inventory of the missing articles of the bus. Crl.M.C.No.4121/2011 Page 5 of 6 16. Ld. ADJ has perused the record of the Traffic Police in the instant case and is of the view that police has not complied with the Section 66 (2) in letter and spirit. Therefore ld. ADJ was of the view that whatever prepared i.e. not inventory as enumerated in Section 66 (2) of the D.P. Act. The grievance of the petitioner is if he has violated any of the rules of Traffic Rules undisputedly he is liable to pay penalty fine whatever it is. The police cannot misuse the powers in discharging their duties as provided under the Act. Therefore he is running pillar to post to get the inventory prepared of the missing / stolen articles of the bus.17. In my opinion the Court below should have been given liberty to the petitioner instead of giving only the opportunity to take photographs of the bus. Only photographs cannot give complete view as required.18. If the police failed to comply with Section 66 (2) of the D.P. Act where they were supposed to prepare the inventory and send to Commissioner of Police then the petitioner at this stage should be allowed to prepare the inventory which they could not.19. Without setting aside the order passed by the Courts below I modified the order passed by both the Courts below with the direction that ACP Vivek Vihar shall allow the petitioner or authorized agent including the person from Insurance Company to prepare the inventory of missing articles of the bus if any.20. Accordingly petitioner shall appear before the aforesaid ACP on 16.12.2011 at 11 AM.21. No further order is required.22. Accordingly Cr.M.C.4121/2011 stands disposed of.23. Dasti.