Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

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:-


  Ashok K Chauhan & Others Versus Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA,   22/02/2017.  

  Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) Through Lrs. Versus Union of India & Others,   22/02/2017.  

  State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Versus Shaik Mahibulla Sharief,   22/02/2017.  

  Shri Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nawab Yossuf & Another,   21/02/2017.  

  Jayakantham & Others Versus Abaykumar,   21/02/2017.  

  Dibyalok Nursing Home Represented by its Prop. Smt. Chandana Mukherjee & Another Versus Tapan Kumar Koley & Another,   21/02/2017.  

  Satish Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others,   21/02/2017.  

  Manuara Khatun & Others Versus Rajesh Kr. Singh & Others,   21/02/2017.  

  P. Subramani & Others Versus The Reserve Bank of India, Rep. By its Authorised Officer, Shri R.Parthasarathy, Asst. Manager, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Chennai,   20/02/2017.  

  Rajesh Kumar Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others,   20/02/2017.  

  Prabhakara Adiga Versus Gowri & Others,   20/02/2017.  

  Sk. Bhikan Versus Mehamoodabee & Others,   20/02/2017.  

  Jagmal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan,   20/02/2017.  

  Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons,   17/02/2017.  

  Mehmooda Gulshan Versus Javaid Hussain Mungloo,   17/02/2017.  

  Krishan Mohan Goyal Versus St Mary's Academy & Another,   17/02/2017.  

  Suja George & Others Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another,   17/02/2017.  

  Jyoti Sharma Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission & Others,   17/02/2017.  

  Jitender Arora & Others Versus Sukriti Arora & Others,   17/02/2017.  

  Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Versus Union of India & Others,   17/02/2017.  

  M/s. Ramdeobaba Padmavati Developers & Builders & Others Versus Ganesh Vitthaldas Chandak & Others,   16/02/2017.  

  T.A. Kathiru Kunju Versus Jacob Mathai & Another,   16/02/2017.  

  Sabu Mathew George Versus Union of India & Others,   16/02/2017.  

  The Union of India & Others Versus Amar Bahadur Singh,   16/02/2017.  

  Saraf Home Appliances Private Limited Versus Jet Settlers Limited,   16/02/2017.  

  Council of Instt. of Chartered Accountants of India Versus Subodh Gupta & Another,   16/02/2017.  

  Ravinder Kumar Dogra Versus State of Haryana & Another,   15/02/2017.  

  M/s. Horticontracts, Rep.by its Sole Proprietor, P. Muralidharan & Others Versus M/s. Agrihorticultural Consultants, Rep. by its Propreitrix, Lalitha Mukundan & Others,   15/02/2017.  

  Sardar Nihal Singh & Another Versus Jat Dharamshala Samiti, Haridwar & Another,   15/02/2017.  

  Shivajirao Bhavanrao Patil & Another Versus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Malshiras & Others,   15/02/2017.  

  Nisha Versus The State of Haryana & Another,   15/02/2017.  

  Arjun & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh,   14/02/2017.  

  Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Versus M/s. MESCO Kalinga Steel Ltd. & Others,   14/02/2017.  

  Dilip Mallick Versus State of West Bengal,   14/02/2017.  

  Naila Abdul Nazar Versus Gopalakrishnan & Others,   14/02/2017.  

  Rohit Gujarilal Anand & Others Versus Arcade (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Managing Director M.G. Ramchandra) & Others,   14/02/2017.  

  Hpl (India) Limited & Others Versus QRG Enterprises & Another,   14/02/2017.  

  M/s. Sukalyani CIL Women Welfare Organisation & Others Versus Prafulla Ranjan Das & Others,   14/02/2017.  

  Shyam Narayan Chouksey Versus Union of India,   14/02/2017.  

  Subramanian & Others Versus Kalliaperumal & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Reena Suresh Alhat & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Bharat Daswani Versus State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Nidhi Kaim & Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Harkesh Chand Versus Krishan Gopal Mehta & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Hiramohan Doley Versus The State of Assam & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Vivek Singh Versus Romani Singh,   13/02/2017.  

  Ashwani Kumar, Presently working as Lower Division Clerk, in the office of Chief Engineer, Bathinda Military Station Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Delhi Development Authority Versus Rajender Singh Chauhan & Others,   13/02/2017.  

  Rajdhani Public School & Another Versus Director of Education & Another,   13/02/2017.  

  In Re : Sri Justice C.S. Karnan,   13/02/2017.  




#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.