JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.: (Oral) -- CRM-4125-2015 2. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the present revision petition. 3. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 110 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case 4. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of car make Scorpio bearing registration No.PB-11Y-0222, was dismissed. 5. The petitioner is stated to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question which was confiscated in case FIR No.51 dated 20.6.2007 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station, Valtoha, District Tarn Taran by learned Special Court, Tarn Taran vide order dated 2.1.2014 (Annexure P-2). Said order reads as under: “Present:- Sh. G.S. Rana, Addl. PP for the State. None for the respondent. Seizure warrants issued against the vehicle in question received back duly effected. Statement of HC Gurmeet Singh also recorded to that effect. Accordingly, vehicle in question is ordered to be confiscated. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Pronounced on:02.01.2014 Sd/- Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran.” 6. Against the aforesaid order of confiscation dated 2.1.2014, the petitioner had filed an appeal before this Court bearing No.CRA-676-SB of 2014 wherein the following order (Annexure P-3) was passed on 24.4.2014: “Present:- Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the applicantappellant. Mr. Ashish Sanghi, DAG, Punjab. *** Appeal against the conviction has already been admitted. So, CRM No.9681 of 2014 stands allowed. Operation of the impugned order qua confiscation stands stayed till the decision of the appeal.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that against the order dated 2.1.2014 whereby the vehicle in question was ordered to be confiscated, this Court in CRM-9681 of 2014 had stayed the operation of the order of confiscation and, therefore, the vehicle in question was bound to be released on Superdari. The petitioner had moved the application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran for releasing the vehicle in question on 17.5.2014 (Annexure P-4). 8. The petitioner had moved the application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran for releasing the vehicle in question on 17.5.2014 (Annexure P-4). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once the appellate Court has taken cognizance against the order of confiscation and the said order was stayed, there was no option with the trial Court but to release the vehicle on Superdari. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mukhtiar Singh, submits that in view of the fact that confiscation of the vehicle in question was stayed by this Court in CRM No.9681 of 2014 vide order dated 24.4.2014, he has no objection if the vehicle is ordered to be released on Superdari. 10. Considering the fact that the order of confiscation has already been stayed in the appeal by this Court, order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the trial Court cannot be held to be legally sustainable. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.10.2014 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to release the vehicle in question on Superdari subject to its satisfaction or any other condition which may warrant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Disposed of. —————————