REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 14 OF 2008

General Insurance Council & Ors. …........Petitioners

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ….......Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Even though the question projected in this petition  

filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stands  

answered by a judgment of two learned judges of this Court  

reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283  titled  Sunderbhai  Ambalal  

Desai Versus  State of Gujarat pertaining to interpretation  

and mode of implementation of Sections 451 and 457 of the  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  shall  be  

referred to as  'the Code'), but on account of certain grey  

areas having been left untouched, which still cast clouds on  

the  question,  this  petition  has  been  filed  for  further  

directions, orders and clarifications.

2. Petitioner No.1,  General Insurance Council has been  

constituted under Section 64  C (b) of the Insurance Act,  

1938 consisting of all the members and associate members of  

the association as envisaged in Section 64A of the said Act,  

who carry on general insurance business in India and are  

being represented by Petitioner No. 1 and have been arrayed  

as Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in the said petition.

- 2 -

3. According to them, there has been a gross violation  

of fundamental rights as conferred on them under Articles 14  

and  19  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   Thus,  they  are  

constrained  to  approach  this  Court  directly  by  filing  a  

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.  They  

further contended that despite the directions passed by this  

Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai  (supra), as also in W.P.  

(C) No. 282 of 2007  titled General Insurance Council and  

Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, decided on  

09.07.2007, there has not been full and complete compliance  

of the same. Therefore, they have once again approached this  

Court for issuing further directions so that national waste  

with regard to the seized vehicles involved in commission of  

various  offences  may  not  become  junk  and  their  road  

worthiness be maintained.  

4. According to the Petitioners, the report of 2005 of  

NCRB, 84,675 vehicles were reported lost, out of which 24,918  

vehicles were recovered by the police and out of these, only  

4,676  vehicles  were  finally  co-ordinated.   As  a  result,  

several hundred crores worth of assets were lost. Further, by  

the time the recovered vehicles are released, the same are  

reduced to junk at the respective police stations.  In other  

words, Petitioners have prayed that national waste that is  

being  caused  could  be  substantially  reduced,  curbed  and  

eliminated to a great extent. Keeping in view the aforesaid  

facts in mind, they have filed this Writ Petition.

5.  In  Sunderbhai  Ambalal  Desai  (supra),  the  Supreme  

Court was primarily dealing with provisions of Sections 451  

and  457  of  the   Code.   While  quoting  the  aforesaid  two  

provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed in  

para 7 as under:-

- 3 -

“7. In  our  view,  the  powers  under  Section  451  Cr  PC  should  be  exercised  expeditiously  and  judiciously.  It  would  serve various purposes, namely:

1. owner  of  the  article  would  not  suffer  because  of  its  remaining  unused  or  by  its  misappropriation;

2. court  or  the  police would not be required to keep the  article in safe custody;

3. if  the  proper  panchnama  before  handing  over  possession  of the article is prepared, that can be  used in evidence instead of its production  before  the  court  during  the  trial.  If  necessary, evidence could also be recorded  describing the nature of the property in  detail; and

4. this  jurisdiction  of the court to record evidence should be  exercised promptly so that there may not  be  further  chance  of  tampering  with  the  articles.”

6. To safeguard the  interests  of the prosecution, it  

was directed that following measures should be adopted giving  

instances contained in para 12 reproduced hereinbelow:  

“12 For this purpose, if material on  record indicates that such articles  belong to the complainant at whose house  theft, robbery  or  dacoity  has  taken  place,  then  seized  articles  be   

handed  over  to  the  complainant  after:

(1) preparing  detailed  proper  panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking  photographs  of  such  articles and a bond that such  articles would be produced if required at  the time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.”

- 4 -

7. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to  

time by the police either in commission of various offences  

or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during  

investigation of complaint of thefts,  the court observed as  

under:-

“17. In  our  view,  whatever  be  the  situation, it is of no use to keep such  seized vehicles at the police stations for  a long period. It is for the Magistrate to  pass  appropriate  orders  immediately  by  taking appropriate bond and guarantee as  well as security for return of the said  vehicles,  if  required  at  any  point  of  time. This can be done pending hearing of  applications for return of such vehicles.

18.   In  case  where  the  vehicle  is  not  claimed  by  the  accused,  owner,  or  the  insurance  company  or  by  a  third  person,  then  such  vehicle  may  be  ordered  to  be  auctioned  by  the  court.  If  the  said  vehicle  is  insured  with  the  insurance  company  then  the  insurance  company  be  informed by the court to take possession  of the vehicle which is not claimed by the  owner or a third person. If the insurance  company  fails  to  take  possession,  the  vehicles may be sold as per the direction  of the court. The court would pass such  order within a period of six months from  the date of production of the said vehicle  before  the  court.  In  any  case,  before  handing over possession of such vehicles,  appropriate  photographs  of  the  said  vehicle  should  be  taken  and  detailed  panchnama should be prepared.”

8. Since it appeared to the Petitioners that despite  

the said directions, the requirements of the Petitioners were  

not being fulfilled, they were constrained to file W.P (C)  

No. 282 of 2007 titled General Insurance Council and Others  

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, decided on 09.07.2007  

by a coordinate Bench of two learned Judges of this Court.   

- 5 -

9. In  this  second  round  of  litigation  before  this

Court, a direction was sought with regard to compliance  of  

Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short 'the  

M.V. Act' and Rule 159 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,  

1989 in short, 'the Rules'.

10. This Court in the said matter after considering the  

issue came to the following conclusion:-

“Since  there  is  a  mandatory  requirement to act in the manner provided  in  Section  158  (6)   there  is  no  justifiable  reason  as  to  why  the  requirement is not being followed.

It  is,  therefore,  directed  that  all  the  State  Governments  and  the  Union  Territories shall instruct, if not already  done, all concerned police officers about  the need to comply with the requirement of  Section  158  (6)  keeping  in  view  the  requirement indicated in Rule 159 and in  Form 54.   Periodical checking shall be  done  by  the  Inspector  General  of  Police  concerned to ensure that the requirements  are being complied with. In case there is  non-compliance,  appropriate  action  shall  be  taken  against  the  erring  officials.  The  Department  of  Transport  and  Highway  shall  make  periodical  verification  to  ensure that action is being taken and in  case  of  any  deviation  immediately  bring  the same to the notice of the concerned  State Government/Union Territories so that  necessary action can be taken against the  concerned officials.”

The  writ  petition  is  accordingly  disposed of.”

- 6 - 11. Despite the aforesaid directions having been issued

by this Court in the aforesaid two matters, grievance is  

still  being  made  by  the  Petitioners,  that  the  police,  

investigating  agency  and  the  prosecuting  agency  are  not  

taking  appropriate  and  adequate  steps  for  compliance  of  

aforesaid directions issued by this Court. Therefore, a need  

has arisen for giving further directions so as to clear the  

clouds and iron out the creases.

12. Notice of the said petition was issued to all the  

States and Union Territories.  Almost all the States have  

contended that they have already issued necessary guidelines  

and  directions  for  full  and  complete  compliance  of  the  

provisions contained in Sections 451 and 457 of the Code as  

elaborated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) as also under  

Section 158 (6) of the M.V. Act and 159 of the Rules as  

directed in General Insurance Council case (supra). Thus, in  

one voice, they have contended that there would not be any  

difficulty in compliance of the directions that may be issued  

in furtherance of achieving the object as directed by this  

Court.  Thus, in our view, there appears to be consensus in  

this matter.

13. Petitioners  have  submitted  that  information  with  

regard to all insured vehicles in the country is available  

with the Insurance Information Bureau created by IRDA.  This  

information  could  be  utilised  to  assist  the  police  to  

identify the insurer of the vehicle. Upon recovery of the  

vehicle in police station, insurer/ complainant can call an  

All  India  Toll  Free  No.  to  be   provided  by   Insurance  

Information Bureau to give the information of the recovered  

vehicle. Thereafter, the insured vehicle database would be  

searched  to  identify  the  respective  insurer.   Upon  such  

identification, this information can be communicated to the  

respective  insurer  and  concerned  police  stations  for  

necessary coordination.

- 7 -

14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information

is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has  

to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer.  

We  also  feel,  it  is  necessary  that  in  addition  to  the  

directions issued by this Court in  Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai  

(supra)  considering  the  mandate  of  Section  451  read  with  

Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions  

with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.

“(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a  separate  application  for  release  of  the  recovered  vehicle  as  soon  as  it  is  informed  of  such  recovery  before  the  Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release  shall be made within a period of 30 days  from  the  date  of  the  application.  The  necessary  photographs  may  be  taken  duly  authenticated  and  certified,  and  a  detailed panchnama may be prepared before  such release.

(B) The  photographs  so  taken  may  be  used as secondary evidence during trial.  Hence, physical production of the vehicle  may be dispensed with.

(C) Insurer  would  submit  an  undertaking/guarantee  to  remit  the  proceeds  from  the  sale/auction  of  the  vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company  in the event that the Magistrate finally  adjudicates that the rightful ownership of  the  vehicle  does  not  vest  with  the  insurer.  The  undertaking/guarantee  would  be furnished at the time of release of the  vehicle,  pursuant  to  the  applcation  for  release  of  the  recovered  vehicle.  Insistence  on  personal  bonds  may  be  dispensed  with  looking  to  the  corporate  structure of the insurer.”

- 8 - 15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when  

vehicles are seized  and kept in various police stations, not  

only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but  

upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay  

on  account  of  weather  conditions.  Even  a  good  maintained  

vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in  

the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the  

above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several  

valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either  

stolen  or  are  cannibalised  so  that  the  vehicles  become  

unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart  

from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct  

that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director  

Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the  

statutory provisions and further direct that the activities  

of each and every police stations, especially with regard to  

disposal  of  the  seized  vehicles  be  taken  care  of  by  the  

Inspector  General  of  Police  of  the  concerned  

Division/Commissioner  of  Police  of  the  concerned  

cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.

16. In case any non-compliance is reported either by the  

Petitioners or by any of the aggrieved party, then needless  

to say, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the  

matter against an erring officer who would be dealt with iron  

hands.  With  the  aforesaid  directions,  this  writ  petition  

stands finally disposed of.

        …...................................J.

[P.SATHASIVAM]

......................................J.                      [DEEPAK VERMA]

New Delhi. April 19, 2010