Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1397 (PNJ)

Kala Ram v. State of Punjab

2012-10-05

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.03.2012 vide which, application moved by the petitioner for release of car bearing No. DL-3C-AC-4014 on Superdari has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of said car, which was alleged to be used in case bearing FIR No.57 dated 07.06.2011, registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Petitioner being owner of the said car moved an application for release on Superdari, which has been dismissed on the ground that the contraband was found in the car and there was no reason to release the car on Superdari. The petitioner was found innocent and challan was presented against the accused-Tinku. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vehicle is likely to get damaged or destroyed because of improper place of parking and after some time, it would not remain in a useable condition. The application has been dismissed only on the ground that the alleged contraband was recovered from the car and no other reason has been mentioned. 3. In response to notice of motion, reply on behalf of State has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. 4. In reply, it has been mentioned that the said vehicle is not required in any other case. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is registered owner of the car. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. mandates that in a case the Magistrate may order the delivery of the seized property to the person entitled to possession thereof on such conditions, as he may thinks fit. The petitioner undertakes to comply all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and also ready to produce the same in case, the same is required at any point of time and no prejudice will be caused to the State in case, the same is released to the State. 7. Otherwise also, the utility of vehicle will demise by keeping it and standing idle in the Police Station without any use. There is no other allegation regarding the involvement of the said vehicle in any other case. 8. 7. Otherwise also, the utility of vehicle will demise by keeping it and standing idle in the Police Station without any use. There is no other allegation regarding the involvement of the said vehicle in any other case. 8. It has been held in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the commercial vehicle should not be unnecessarily detained in the Police Station and should be released forthwith to the owner. Moreover, in case the vehicle is allowed to remain at the Police Station without any care, then it would be subject to rain and sun and its condition would deteriorate and ultimately, at the end of trial, the order of confiscation can be passed. In such like situation, State will also not be benefited in any manner. Although the discretion has been given to the Magistrate to decide the question about the person “entitled to possess” but expression “entitled to possess” primarily means a lawful or rightful title to hold the property. The only reason while declining the application which has been mentioned is that the vehicle can be used for transportation of contraband and trial has not completed so far which is not the mandate of Section 457(2) of Cr.P.C. 9. The present petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in view of the discussion as mentioned above and release the vehicle on Superdari on imposing the terms and conditions, if any, after verification of the documents. The necessary exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.