Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 475 (RAJ)

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby application filed by the petitioner for granting him time to get the vehicle Maruti Alto Car bearing No.MH-02-MA-3217 registered in his name from the State of Punjab has been rejected. 2. It is noticed that in Sessions Case No.19/2015, the trial court vide order dated 27.10.2015 has ordered for releasing the above mentioned vehicle on Supurdaginama to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the conditions for releasing the above mentioned vehicle on Supurdaginama was that the petitioner would get the vehicle registered in his name within a period of two months and also get the insurance of the vehicle done within a period of two months from the date of releasing the vehicle on Supurdaginama. The petitioner has not submitted any certificate of registration or insurance before the trial court within the stipulated period and submitted an application for granting him time to get the vehicle registered in his name by the State of Punjab and for submitting the insurance certificate. 3. It was argued before the trial court that the registration authority of the Motor Vehicle Department of State of Punjab is not registering the vehicle in the name of the petitioner due to the conditions mentioned in the order of Supurdaginama passed by the trial court. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has specifically observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the registration authority of the Motor Vehicle Department of the State of Punjab has refused to register the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner on an application filed by the petitioner. The trial court has also observed that the petitioner has deliberately not complied with the conditions of the Supurdaginama and, therefore, he should produce the vehicle before the SHO, Police Station, Hindumalkot, District Sri Ganganagar within a period of seven days. 5. The trial court has also observed that the petitioner has deliberately not complied with the conditions of the Supurdaginama and, therefore, he should produce the vehicle before the SHO, Police Station, Hindumalkot, District Sri Ganganagar within a period of seven days. 5. After taking into consideration the observations made by the trial court and particularly the fact that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence, which can suggest that the registration authority of the Motor Vehicle Department of State of Punjab has refused to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner on an application filed by him, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 6. Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.