Full Text
Translation output
f
#33
% 02.06.2011
Present: Mr.Sheikh Israr Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner. jvir. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State/respondent.
+Crl.M.A.No.6839/2011fExemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.No.1915/2011 and Crl.M.A.No.6838/2011
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that in the year 2001, petitioner got financed RTV No.DL-IV-8589 through M/s CityFinancial
Consumer Finance India Ltd. The amount of loan was ?3,40,000/-. The RTV purchased by the petitioner met with an accident resulting in FIR No.934/2001 under Sections 279/337 IPC P.S. Malviya Nagar. The petitioner took the RTV on superdari. But, due to financial constraints, petitioner could not pay the loan instalments. As a result, respondent No.2 i.e. the finance company seized/impounded the vehicle. It is alleged that the trial court, vide the impugned order dated 7'^ March, 2011 has directed the petitioner to produce the said vehicle in the court for identification during evidence despite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the court that the vehicle has been impounded by respondent No.2 company, as such he is not in a position to produce the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate is liable to be quashed; firstly for the reason
2011:DHC:11212 that the trial court failed to appreciate that the vehicle has been impounded by the financer rendering the petitioner incapable of producing it in the court.
Secondly, it is contended that in an accident case, where the ownership of the vehicle involved in an accident is not in dispute, there is no legal requirement for production of vehicle in the court for the reason that its identification can be established through registration number.
Learned APP has fairly conceded that in an accident case, there is no legal requirement for production of vehicle for the purpose of identification as the witness can always identify the vehicle by giving the registration number.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that in an accident case, there is no need for insistence to produce the vehicle involved in an accident in the court during trial as its identification can be fixed by the registration number. Thus, in my opinion, the insistence of Magistrate for production of RTV in the court by the superdar cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated March, 2011 is, therefore, set aside.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order dasti.
JUNE 02, 2011 ks
(AJIT Bhb.RIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:11212
#33
% 02.06.2011
Present: Mr.Sheikh Israr Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner. jvir. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State/respondent.
+Crl.M.A.No.6839/2011fExemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.No.1915/2011 and Crl.M.A.No.6838/2011
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that in the year 2001, petitioner got financed RTV No.DL-IV-8589 through M/s CityFinancial
Consumer Finance India Ltd. The amount of loan was ?3,40,000/-. The RTV purchased by the petitioner met with an accident resulting in FIR No.934/2001 under Sections 279/337 IPC P.S. Malviya Nagar. The petitioner took the RTV on superdari. But, due to financial constraints, petitioner could not pay the loan instalments. As a result, respondent No.2 i.e. the finance company seized/impounded the vehicle. It is alleged that the trial court, vide the impugned order dated 7'^ March, 2011 has directed the petitioner to produce the said vehicle in the court for identification during evidence despite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the court that the vehicle has been impounded by respondent No.2 company, as such he is not in a position to produce the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate is liable to be quashed; firstly for the reason
2011:DHC:11212 that the trial court failed to appreciate that the vehicle has been impounded by the financer rendering the petitioner incapable of producing it in the court.
Secondly, it is contended that in an accident case, where the ownership of the vehicle involved in an accident is not in dispute, there is no legal requirement for production of vehicle in the court for the reason that its identification can be established through registration number.
Learned APP has fairly conceded that in an accident case, there is no legal requirement for production of vehicle for the purpose of identification as the witness can always identify the vehicle by giving the registration number.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that in an accident case, there is no need for insistence to produce the vehicle involved in an accident in the court during trial as its identification can be fixed by the registration number. Thus, in my opinion, the insistence of Magistrate for production of RTV in the court by the superdar cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated March, 2011 is, therefore, set aside.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order dasti.
JUNE 02, 2011 ks
(AJIT Bhb.RIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:11212
JUDGMENT