Skip to content


Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 210 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1986WLN(UC)59
AppellantRajendra Singh
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 451--supardginama--bus found plying without permit--no dispute about identity of bus--bus not required for any purpose in court--held, it may be given on supardginama;application accepted - .....the learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned magistrate.3. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to natwarlal but bus no.rjs 377 had gone out of order on 13-7-1985 and therefore the petitioner replaced it by bus no. rjs 5952 and sent a telegram to the rta udaipur, for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is decided by the learned magistrate when challan is filed before him, the bus may be given to him on supardginama as there is no dispute about the identity of the bus and it would not be required for any purpose before the court. the learned public prosecutor does not oppose this application. in these.....
Judgment:

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. PC is directed against the order of the learned Munsif Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Udaipur, dated 15-7-1985 by which he has refused to give bus No. RJS 5312 on supurdginama to the petitioner. This bus was seized on 13-7-1985 by the Dy. S.P. Shri Devi Singh on 13-7-1985 as it was found plying without permit and was carrying to passengers on Banswara-Partapur route, on a part of which the R.S.R.T.C. had a permit.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned Magistrate.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to Natwarlal but bus No.RJS 377 had gone out of order on 13-7-1985 and therefore the petitioner replaced it by bus No. RJS 5952 and sent a telegram to the RTA Udaipur, for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is decided by the learned Magistrate when challan is filed before him, the bus may be given to him on supardginama as there is no dispute about the identity of the bus and it would not be required for any purpose before the court. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this application. In these circumstances, it appears proper that the bus may be given on supurdginama to the petitioner.

4. I, therefore accept this application and direct that the bus No. RJS 5922 may be given on supurdginama to the petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh on his executing a supurdginama in a sum Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. one and half lac to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) Udaipur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //