Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4529 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-12-18

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present revision against the order passed on 24.3.2006 by Judge, Special Court, Barnala whereby application filed by him for release of his vehicle on superdari was declined. 2. On 16.12.2005, the petitioner, while driving Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10-BM-8771, was allegedly stopped by a police party at the Canal Bridge of Village Dhaula on Mansa Road. The search of Scorpio vehicle led to the recovery of a plastic box from near the driver seat. The said plastic box was later on found to contain 2.5 kilograms of opium. The plastic box along with the samples as well as the Scorpio vehicle was taken into possession by the police by preparing memo in that regard. Ruqa was, thereafter sent by ASI Darshan Singh, on the basis of which FIR No. 159 dated 16.12.2005 was registered at Police Station Tapa against the petitioner under Section 18 of NDPS Act. 3. During the investigation of the case it came to light that the aforementioned Scorpio vehicle stood registered in the name of Ramandeep Singh. Accordingly, he was also taken into custody in the aforementioned FIR and later on released on bail by the trial Court on 22.4.2006. The present petitioner had, in the meantime, been allowed the concession of bail by this Court on 20.3.2006. 4. The petitioner had also filed an application before the trial Court for release of the Scorpio vehicle on superdari as according to him, the original owner Ramandeep Singh had sold the same to him and given an affidavit dated 30.11.2005 to the said effect. The said prayer of the petitioner was, however, declined by the trial Court vide impugned order on the ground that it was Ramandeep Singh, who was the registered owner of the vehicle and not the present petitioner and that the affidavit of Ramandeep Singh about having sold the same to the petitioner was not admissible. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though Ramandeep Singh was the registered owner of the vehicle in question but in fact, it was the petitioner, who had already purchased the same from him. However, by some reason, the vehicle could not be got registered by the petitioner in his name. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though Ramandeep Singh was the registered owner of the vehicle in question but in fact, it was the petitioner, who had already purchased the same from him. However, by some reason, the vehicle could not be got registered by the petitioner in his name. Reliance was placed upon affidavit dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) as per which Ramandeep Singh had stated that he had already sold the Scorpio vehicle to the petitioner after receiving full and final payment and that he had no objection if the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that it is not a rule of thumb that a vehicle has to be released on superdari only to its registered owner where it is shown to the Court that for all intents and purposes, it was the present petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle in question, although not its registered owner. For the time being, the vehicle could be released on superdari in his favour. Accordingly, it was prayed that the revision be accepted, impugned order be set aside and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submitted that the superdari could be ordered only in favour of the registered owner and not in favour of the petitioner, who could at the most be considered as an ostensible owner. Further that the petitioner was found to be using the vehicle in question for transporting narcotic substances and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed before me. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner is uptil now not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. However, Ramandeep Singh, who is the registered owner, has already sold the same to the petitioner. He has executed an affidavit dated 30.11.2005 to the same effect. He stated therein that he had received full and final payment of the vehicle from the petitioner and had no objection if the ownership of the vehicle transferred in favour of the petitioner. However, Ramandeep Singh, who is the registered owner, has already sold the same to the petitioner. He has executed an affidavit dated 30.11.2005 to the same effect. He stated therein that he had received full and final payment of the vehicle from the petitioner and had no objection if the ownership of the vehicle transferred in favour of the petitioner. If the said affidavit is taken into consideration, it would imply that the petitioner is, for all intents and purposes, owner of the vehicle in question though not its registered owner. The petitioner had purchased the vehicle from Ramandeep Singh, who is registered owner, on 30.11.2005 and about a fortnight later on, was arrested in the FIR in question. It may be that he had no sufficient time to apply to the registering authorities for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. In fact, the transaction of sale was already complete and only the formality of charge of ownership remained. It can thus, be safely held that the petitioner was an ostensible owner of the vehicle in question. 9. The police has not been able to collect any evidence that Ramandeep Singh had not sold the vehicle to the petitioner or that the affidavit given by Ramandeep Singh was false or fabricated. Even otherwise by claiming the ownership of the vehicle in question from which the contraband was said to have been recovered, in his favour the petitioner was not gaining anything except to make an application for getting the vehicle released on superdari. On the other hand, if the petitioner had not purchased the vehicle in question, he could very well take up a plea later on that he had no connection with the same in any manner and then divert the investigation towards Ramandeep Singh, who was the registered owner of the vehicle. 10. It has not been disputed by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurcharan Singh of Police Station Tapa, that the confiscation proceedings regarding the vehicle in question have not yet started. In such a situation, if the vehicle is allowed to stand in the Police Station, it would make it unfit for road worthiness. Its machinery, colour and tyres would be damaged. The trial of the case is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of the Police Station. 11. Its machinery, colour and tyres would be damaged. The trial of the case is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of the Police Station. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that as and when the Court would require the aforementioned vehicle, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court. 12. In Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR(Crl.) 719 (P&H), this Court while relying upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 380 (SC) and Roop Chand and Company v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 401 (P&H) allowed the prayer of the accused petitioner therein for release of the vehicle on superdari in a case under the provisions of NDPS Act. 13. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and the undertaking given by the petitioner, it will be in the interest of justice if the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner on his furnishing the requisite undertaking. 14. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed, impugned order passed by Judge, Special Court, Barnala dated 24.3.2006 is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. Three lacs with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking to the effect that as and when the trial Court would require the said vehicle, he will produce the same in the same condition at his own cost before the concerned Court. He shall also furnish an undertaking that in future, he will not use the said vehicle for such an offence.