Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3010 (PNJ)

Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-07-25

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Harpreet Singh has filed this revision petition against the order dated April 13, 2006, passed by Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, whereby application filed by the petitioner for releasing the truck bearing registration No. WB-15-6251 on supurdari which was impounded in case F.I.R. No. 321 dated 29.8.2005 under Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sangrur has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. As per the prosecution version, six bags of poppy husk were recovered from this vehicle, when it was being driven by one Jiwan Singh. The trial in the case is going on. However, same is not likely to conclude soon. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved application for releasing the said vehicle on sapurdari, which has been dismissed by the trial court, vide impugned order on the ground that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under the Act. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the aforesaid FIR, a false case has been planted by the police and recovery of six bags of poppy husk has been shown from the truck owned by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of this truck and it is being used by him for carriage of goods. He submits that conclusion of trial will take a long time and in case, truck is not released, it will not only damage its condition, but the petitioner will suffer in his business of carriage of goods. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that as and when the court requires the aforesaid truck, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned court. Counsel further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and decision of this Court in Roop Chand and Co. v. State of Punjab 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 401. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, the trial in the aforesaid case is still pending before the trial Court. The question of confiscation of the vehicle in question will be considered along with the main case. At present, the vehicle is standing in the police station. 6. v. State of Punjab 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 401. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, the trial in the aforesaid case is still pending before the trial Court. The question of confiscation of the vehicle in question will be considered along with the main case. At present, the vehicle is standing in the police station. 6. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desais case (supra) and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, as indicated above, it will be in the interest of justice if the said vehicle is ordered to be given on sapurdari to the petitioner on his furnishing proper undertaking. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated April 13, 2006, passed by Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on sapurdari to the petitioner on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs with one surety in the like amount and the undertaking to the effect that as and when the trial court requires the above said truck, the petitioner will produce the same in the same condition at his own cost before the concerned court. He shall also furnish undertaking to the effect that in future, he will not allow his aforesaid vehicle to be used for such an offence.