Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju Ram vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
1
Crl.Misc.No.M-5961 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-5961 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION: August 29,2012
Raju Ram
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present petition has been filed for the release of truck bearing registration No.RJ-19 GA/6494 on superdari.
The facts, in a nutshell, are that FIR No.139 dated 8.7.2009 was registered under Sections 18/61/85 of NDPS Act against Mekha Ram and Ashok Kumar. 13 kg of opium was recovered from the aforesaid vehicle.
2Crl.Misc.No.M-5961 of 2012 During the pendency of trial, the present petitioner, who is owner of the aforesaid vehicle, moved an application for release of thevehicle on superdari before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur which was dismissed on the ground that the vehicle can be used again for transporting the intoxicants and there is a possibility of its being not produced during trial and the material witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined.
Notice of motion was issued on 29.2.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 investigation of the case is complete. Learned counsel also submits that the vehicle was financed from Tata Motor Finance Limited and the petitioner is bound to make payment by way of monthly instalment amounting to Rs.23,310/- and it is very difficult to pay instalments to the Finance Company without using the same.
Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the vehicle is released on superdari, there is possibility of its being not produced during trial and it can be used again for transporting the narcotic or psychotropic substances. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for the release of vehicle on superdari.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.
Admittedly, the application has been moved by the petitioner for release of vehicle on superdari which has been declined and the grounds taken in the impugned order is that the vehicle can be misused, if released 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-5961 of 2012 on superdari and material witnesses are yet to be examined. Section 457 of CrPC 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. Admittedly, the present petitioner is owner of the truck in question and it is a commercial vehicle and the trial may take some time and no purpose is going to be fulfilled by parking the vehicle idle in the police station as physical condition of the vehicle would be deteriorated. Moreover, the petitioner has to pay instalments amounting to Rs.23,310/- per month. In case the said vehicle is not released on superdari, the petitioner would not be in a position to earn anything which is necessary for making the payment of loan taken by him. The petitioner is also ready to comply with the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court at the time of release of vehicle on superdari and is also ready to produce the truck on asking of the Court, if required and also undertakes not to sell it off during the pendency of proceedings.
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 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-5961 of 2012 completed so far which is not the mandate of Section 457(2) of CrPC.
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 copy of the order.
August 29,2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
KD JUDGE