Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 832 (RAJ)

Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2004-05-24

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the petitioner Ganesh Lal on 27.4.2004 against the order dated 20.4.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh by which the learned Special Judge rejected the application of the petitioner for giving a Tata s Mobile No. DNC 1627 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Vehicle') to the petitioner on Supurdginama. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That on 4.9.2002 an FIR was lodged in Police Station Chanderia, District Chittorgarh to the effect that the SHO. PS. Chanderia received a secret information that accused Shambhoo, Madan, Sattu and Balu were coming in the vehicle and wanted to go towards Gogunda and in that vehicle there was contraband Popi Husk. It was further stated in the FIR that as per information on 5.9.2002, the vehicle came and it was stopped and 7 bags of Popi Husk were recovered and during proceedings of search and seizure, the police also seized the abovesaid vehicle. (ii) That the accused Shambhoo was got arrested and the rest of the accused could not be arrested and a challan was filed in respect of the accused Shambhoo and the investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was pending against some other accused persons. (iii) That after the trial, accused Shambhoo was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh through his judgment and order dated 24.3.2004. (iv) That on 25.3.2004, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh alleging that no doubt that the vehicle in question at the time when it was seized, belonged to one Amer Singh but thereafter the same was purchased by the petitioner and the same has been registered in his name. It was further stated that since the vehicle in question was lying at the Police Station and is being damaged, therefore, it may be handed over to him on Supurdginama. It was further stated that since the vehicle in question was lying at the Police Station and is being damaged, therefore, it may be handed over to him on Supurdginama. (v) That this application of the present petitioner was rejected by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh through his order dated 20.4.2004 inter alia holding that the owner of the vehicle in question was first one Amer Singh and thereafter it was sold to one Balu Ram and since 15.10.2003, the present petitioner has been shown as the owner of the vehicle in question and since the incident took place earlier to that date, therefore, the vehicle could not be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdginama. (vi) That aggrieved from the order dated 20.4.2004, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner and his main case is that since he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, therefore, it should have been released to him. 3. I have heard and perused the case file. 4. So far as the question that since 15.10.2003, the present petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, there is no dispute on this point. There is also no dispute on the point that on the date of incident, the petitioner was not the owner. 5. There is also no dispute on the point that one accused Shambhoo has been convicted by the trial court through his judgment and order dated 4.3.2004 and investigation under Section 173(8) was pending in respect of some of other accused persons who were absconding from the place of occurrence. therefore, challan was filed only against the arrested accused Shambnoo and trial took place against him only. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that no order was passed about the vehicle in question by the learned Special Judge, NPCS Cases, Chittorgarh while passing the judgment dated 24.3.2004. 7. The question that whether in the facts and circumstances mentioned to above, the present petitioner is entitled to get the custody of the vehicle in question on 'Supurdginama' or not? 8. This Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 7. The question that whether in the facts and circumstances mentioned to above, the present petitioner is entitled to get the custody of the vehicle in question on 'Supurdginama' or not? 8. This Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 303/2004 (Sajjan Lal v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 10.5.2004 has taken the view that the provisions of Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. are not in consistent with the: theme of NDPS Act of 1985 and thus the vehicle seized under the provisions of Act of 1985 can be released on Supurdginama during the pendency of the trial to the rightful owner. Since in the present case, after 5.10.2003, the petitioner has become the registered owner of the vehicle in question, therefore, he is entitled to get the custody of the vehicle in question n Supurdginama and the application of the petitioner dated 25.3.2004 reserves to be allowed.Refusing to give the custody of the vehicle in question to the petitioner can the ground that the petitioner has become the registered owner of the vehicle after the incident of 5.9.2002 is no ground as there was no other claimant before the Court when the impugned order was passed.For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 20.4.2004 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The result is that the present misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed, the impugned order dated 20.4,2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh is quashed and set aside and the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question on Supurdginama is allowed and Special Judge is directed that the Tata Mobile No. D.N.C. 1627 be delivered to the petitioner Ganesh Lal on 'Supurdginama' provided he satisfies the following conditions:- (1) That the petitioner shall produce the certified copy of the Registration Certificate in Court showing the number of chassis of the vehicle in question. (2) He shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle in Court as and when required by the Court. (2) He shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle in Court as and when required by the Court. (3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make it unidentifiable. Petition Allowed - Order of Court Below Set Aside. *******