Delhi District Court
Ram Ashish vs State on 13 December, 2025
DLND010077472025 Page 1 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.545/2025
In the matter of :-
Ram Ashish
S/o. Sh. Ram Chander Thakur
ATI, Token No. 61293
Dealing Assistant, DTC
Shadipur Depot
.....Revisionist
(represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. Sandeep Kumar)
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
....Respondent
(represented by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 R/w 399 of CrPC
Date of institution : 20.09.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 14.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.12.2025
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
LALER 17:18:21 +0530
DLND010077472025 Page 2 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Sh. Ravi, Ld. JMFC-07, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in the case titled State vs. Wazir arising out of FIR No. 1169/2015, PS Vasant Vihar.
1.2. The Revisionist, representing the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PC 8695. The Revisionist had moved an application before the Ld. Trial Court seeking cancellation of the superdari bond and permission to scrap/dispose of the said vehicle, as it had completed its operational life span of 15 years and was occupying scarce space at the depot.
1.3. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application vide the impugned order, observing that the trial was at the stage of prosecution evidence and the vehicle might be required for identification. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the Revisionist has approached this Court.
2. IMPUGNED ORDER 2.1. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is reproduced verbatim as follows:
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
LALER 17:18:32 +0530
DLND010077472025 Page 3 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
"This court is of the view that since the present matter is at the prosecution evidence stage and there might be requirement of the present vehicle during the evidence, this court is not inclined to allow this application at this stage. However, the applicant is at liberty to move the similar application after the conclusion of prosecution evidence stage. The application is accordingly dismissed."
3. GROUNDS OF REVISION 3.1. The Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:
a) Expiry of Vehicle Life: The vehicle is more than 15 years old and is no longer in a roadworthy condition. It has been condemned by the department and its retention is serving no useful purpose.
b) Lack of Space: The Government has purchased new buses for public transport, and the depot is facing an acute shortage of space.
The retention of this scrap vehicle is hindering the accommodation of new public transport vehicles.
c) Judicial Precedents: The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Manjit Singh v. State (2014), which explicitly mandate that vehicles should not be detained indefinitely in custody and that photographs can serve as primary evidence during trial.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
LALER 17:18:44 +0530
DLND010077472025 Page 4 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
d) Readiness to Comply: The Revisionist is ready to comply with any condition imposed by this Court, including the preparation of a panchnama and photography/videography, to facilitate the disposal of the vehicle.
4. FINDINGS 4.1. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record.
4.2. The short question for adjudication is whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in declining permission to scrap the vehicle solely on the ground that the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
4.3. The law regarding the disposal of case property, specifically vehicles, is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) observed that keeping vehicles in police stations or depots for long periods renders them junk and a national waste. The Apex Court held that it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and directed that they should be released or disposed of promptly.
4.4. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, through Justice J.R. Midha in Manjit Singh v. State (CRL.M.C. 4485/2013), has laid down comprehensive guidelines for such cases . Hon'ble High Court clarified that the physical production of the case property during trial is not necessary if proper secondary evidence is created. The Court held:
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
17:18:54 +0530
LALER
DLND010077472025 Page 5 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
a) The vehicle can be allowed to be sold/scrapped even during the pendency of the trial.
b) The condition that the vehicle must be produced during evidence is unnecessary if photographs and a panchnama are properly placed on record.
c) These photographs and the panchnama constitute sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the vehicle during the trial.
4.5. In the present case, the vehicle is a DTC bus involved in an FIR from 2015. It has evidently crossed its statutory life of 15 years in 2025. Retaining a condemned vehicle that occupies public space at a depot merely for "identification" during trial is contrary to the ratio of the aforementioned judgments. The concern of the Ld. Trial Court regarding the "requirement of the vehicle during evidence" can be fully addressed by substituting the physical vehicle with digital evidence (videography and photography) and a panchnama.
4.6. Therefore, the reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court that the application is premature or that the vehicle is physically required for evidence is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5. ORDER 5.1. In view of the settled position of law and the findings recorded above, the revision petition is ALLOWED.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH PARTAP
PARTAP SINGH LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
LALER 17:19:05 +0530
DLND010077472025 Page 6 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
5.2. The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Ld. JMFC-07, Patiala House Courts, in FIR No. 1169/2015 is hereby set aside.
5.3. The application of the Revisionist for cancellation of the superdari bond and permission to scrap/dispose of the vehicle No. DL1PC 8695 is allowed, subject to the following conditions to ensure the evidentiary value is preserved:
a) Preparation of Panchnama: The Investigating Officer (IO) is directed to prepare a detailed Panchnama of the vehicle, describing its physical condition, engine number, chassis number, and any specific dent/damage relevant to the accident.
b) Photography and Videography: The IO shall ensure that the vehicle is photographed from all angles (front, back, left, right, and top) and videographed. These photographs/videos must clearly show the registration number and the damage, if any.
c) Certification: The Panchnama and the photographs/video shall be signed/certified by the IO, the Revisionist (DTC official), and the Accused (if available and willing; otherwise, a witness shall suffice) to prevent any future dispute regarding identity.
d) Secondary Evidence: It is clarified that these photographs, videography, and the Panchnama shall be read as evidence during the trial, and the physical production of the vehicle shall be dispensed with.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2025.12.13
LALER 17:19:16 +0530
DLND010077472025 Page 7 of 7
Cr Rev / 545/2025
RAM ASHISH
Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
5.4. Upon compliance with the above directions, the Superdari bond furnished by the Revisionist stands cancelled/discharged, and the Revisionist is granted liberty to scrap or dispose of the vehicle in accordance with DTC rules and transport departmment regulations.
5.5. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance and a copy be given dasti to the revisionist.
5.6. File be consigned to the Record Room.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP SAURABH PARTAP
SINGH LALER
13th day of December, 2025 SINGH
LALER
Date: 2025.12.13
17:19:25 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
13.12.2025