Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1254 (DEL)

ANAND v. N. C. T. OF DELHI

2003-12-15

J.D.KAPOOR

body2003
J. D. Kapoor, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the registered owner of a car bearing No. DL 4 CB 6473. Some time in the year 1993 the said car was involved in a crime and was impounded by the police. On the application of the petitioner the car was released on Superdari for Rs. 1,70,000/- on 4. 5. 1993 with the direction to produce the same as and when required in the Court. The petitioner was given a notice to produce the car on 27. 2. 2002 i. e. after 9 years when the matter came up for evidence. In response to the said notice the petitioner appeared and gave the undertaking to produce the same on 19. 3. 2002. Unfortunately the car was stolen and he lodged an FIR with the police. On 19. 3. 2002 notice under Section 446, Cr. P. C. was given calling upon the petitioner who was bound by "superdarinama" to produce the car to show cause why the penalty be not imposed and paid by him. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the notice petitioner disclosed that the car has been stolen and fir has been lodged in this regard. Acting on the report of the ACP (Crime) that there was no evidence of vehicle being stolen and false plea has been taken by the petitioner, penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/- was imposed. ( 3 ) ON his failure to pay the penalty warrants of attachment were issued. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the warrant of attachment. The learned ASJ dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 31. 7. 2003 on the premise that since the penalty has been imposed the Court has no power to recall/ cancel the warrant of attachment. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that instead of investigating into the matter and making efforts to recover the car the police appears to have called upon the petitioner to produce the evidence as to the theft of the car. The factum of non-recovery of car either from the petitioner or from any source by way of result of interrogation of the petitioner or investigation was a relevant and material fact for deciding the application for cancellation of warrant of attachment and recalling the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/ -. The factum of non-recovery of car either from the petitioner or from any source by way of result of interrogation of the petitioner or investigation was a relevant and material fact for deciding the application for cancellation of warrant of attachment and recalling the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/ -. It is further contended that on the one hand the car of the petitioner has been stolen and on the other he is being burdened with a penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/ -. ( 5 ) IT appears such a situation is a fall out of delayed trials. The amount of superdari is generally fixed by the Court as the amount of the price of the property or vehicle. For releasing any property on Superdari the object is to ensure its production and not to extract the value thereof from the owner in case he fails to produce it. The release of a property, on Superdari is almost on the same pedestal as a release of a person on the bail and as there is a mandatory provision in the law by way of Section 440, Cr. P. C. that the amount shall not be "excessive" it should always be kept in mind by the Trial Court that object of releasing the property on "superdari" is to ensure its production and therefore the amount of Superdari should not be the same as the value of the property as it Invariably is an "excessive" amount. ( 6 ) BE that as it may as in the instant case some suspicion was raised against the bom fide of the petitioner whether the report of the theft of the vehicle lodged by him was false or true as it was hardly 3-4 days before he was to produce the same that a report of theft was lodged but without going into the merits as to whether the report of theft is false or true I feel inclined to reduce the penalty imposed by the Trial court from Rs. 1,70,000/- to Rs. 20,000/ -. On payment of Rs. 20,000/- within one month, the warrant of attachment issued by the Trial Court shall not be executed. In case the petitioner fails to pay this amount the warrant of attachment executable shall be for the amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE petition stands disposed of. ( 8 ) DASTI. PETITION disposed of.