Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 758 (RAJ)

Shaitan Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-13

P.K. LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT P K Lohra, J. - Petitioner Shaitan Singh, power of attorney of Smt. Pappu Kanwar W/o Shri Bhoor Singh, has laid this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned order dated 22nd of January 2018 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Addl. Sessions Judge No.1) Barmer (for short, "learned trial Court") rejecting his application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No.03/2018 for release of scorpio vehicle bearing No.RJ-15-UA-1062. 2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that Police during patrolling at about 1:15 PM intercepted the aforesaid vehicle on 29th of May, 2017, which was being driven by petitioner Shaitan Singh accompanied by one Veer Singh. Upon search, police recovered 1.960 Kg. poppy straw from the vehicle. It is in that background, the vehicle in question was seized. Though registered owner of the vehicle is Smt. Pappu Kanwar but petitioner being driver of the vehicle carrying the contraband, he and one Veer Singh were also arrayed as accused persons. The registered owner, thereafter, executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner for seeking release of the vehicle. On the strength of power of attorney, petitioner applied for release of vehicle before the learned trial Court by laying application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. but the learned trial Court declined the prayer of petitioner by citing the reason that registration certificate, insurance papers and original power of attorney were not produced. Besides that, leaned trial court has also observed that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced original power of attorney before this Court for perusal besides the copy of registration certificate of vehicle in the name of Smt. Pappu Kanwar. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rendered at Jaipur Bench, in Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2010) CrLR 507. In the said case, the vehicle was seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rendered at Jaipur Bench, in Prakash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2010) CrLR 507. In the said case, the vehicle was seized from the accused for carrying contraband of small quantity just above the commercial quantity. It is in that background, the Court has acceded to the prayer of incumbent and recorded its finding that solely for the reason that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated after trial, conditional release of the vehicle on "Supardagi" cannot be denied and interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to the incumbent on certain conditions. The Court has laid down following conditions for release of the vehicle:- "In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the petition. Accordingly, the order dated 20.01.2010 is set aside and the miscellaneous petition is accepted. The motor vehicle is ordered to be released on "Supurdagi" on following conditions:- (a) the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the car in the Court as and when required to do so. (b)the petitioner shall get the car photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (C) the personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of perhaps identifying them before the Court which is with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the car and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. (e) the petitioner will not allow the car No.RJ-02/TA-0305 to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act." 6. (e) the petitioner will not allow the car No.RJ-02/TA-0305 to be used for any antisocial activities including for the purpose of carrying narcotics which may constitute offence under the NDPS Act." 6. In view of the judgment in Prakash Chand , the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside and the vehicle in question Scorpio bearing No.RJ-15-UA-1062 is ordered to be released subject to the aforementioned conditions and quantum of "Supardgi" determined by learned trial Court.