Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 744 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-03-24

H.S.BHALLA

body2008
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order 14.11.2007 passed by Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking release of scooter bearing registration No. PS-13N-2368 on superdari was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The vehicle apparently was seized with the contraband contained therein. The trial is yet to be commenced. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur committed a grave error in not releasing the vehicle in question on superdari on the ground that proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle in question are to be started simultaneously. Learned counsel has further valiantly contended that till the confiscation proceedings are started, the vehicle in question should be released on superdari to its registered owner subject to the conditions that as and when it is required by the court, the owner of the vehicle shall produce the same in the court on each and every date of hearing fixed by it. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the averments contained in the petition carefully, I am of the considered view that the petition has got merit and the same is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner moved an application before the court for release of vehicle on supardari during the pendency of the case. The prayer of the petitioner was declined by the Judge, Special Court holding that when proceedings regarding confiscation of vehicle are to be started simultaneously, it is not desirable to release the vehicle on supardari. Record further spells out that no proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle have commenced even after expiry of period of six months from the date of registration of the FIR. The contention of the learned counsel that the present case would rather be covered by the ratio of law laid down in case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 561 (P&H). The contention of the learned counsel that the present case would rather be covered by the ratio of law laid down in case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 561 (P&H). The case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR(Criminal) 300 (P&H) was considered in Rajesh Kumars case (supra) and distinguished on the ground that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle were already in progress of the said case which was not the situation in Rajesh Kumars case (supra). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 380 (SC), wherein their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have analysed the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and viewed that no useful purpose would be served to keep the vehicle seized at the Police Station for a long time. Relevant observations in this regard are as under : "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." 7. Similar consideration arose in cases under the NDPS Act as can be seen from the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court, which are to the following effect: "Similarly for the Narcotic Drugs also, for its identification, procedure under section 451 Cr.P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same." 8. Since no proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle have yet commenced, no useful purpose would be served for keeping this vehicle in the Judicial Malkhana since the registration of the case. The vehicle is lying in the Judicial Malkhana for over a period of six months. The scooter of the petitioner will get damaged if it is lying unattended any more. The vehicle is lying in the Judicial Malkhana for over a period of six months. The scooter of the petitioner will get damaged if it is lying unattended any more. The petitioner, of course, can he asked to give an undertaking to keep the vehicle in the same condition and produce the same before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial. Even if the vehicle is required to be confiscated at a subsequent stage, the same can be achieved irrespective of the fact that the vehicle is in the custody of the petitioner. 9. In the light of what has been discussed above, present revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur is set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released to its registered owner on superdari during the pendency of the case. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would move an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur seeking release of the vehicle on supardari, who would be at liberty to lay down certain conditions that may be required to secure the production of the vehicle before the court while passing the order for the vehicle in question to be released on supardari. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also impose some specific conditions to ensure that the vehicle is not sold or changed in any manner during the pendency of the case, lest it might prejudice the rights of the prosecution in any manner.