SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
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.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
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.