Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2016

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2016

Bench: Jaspal Singh

            CRR No. 1802 of 2015 (O&M)                                                  -1 -



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                    CHANDIGARH


                                           CRR No. 1802 of 2015 (O&M)
                                           DECIDED ON: JANUARY 19, 2016

            SUKHWINDER SINGH

                                                                           .....PETITIONER

                                                   VERSUS

            STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                          .....RESPONDENT


            CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

            1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
            2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
            3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

            Present :          Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Rajpreet S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.


            JASPAL SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CRM No. 16430 of 2015

In view of averments made in the application the same is allowed and delay of 17 days' in filing the instant revision petition is condoned.

CRR No. 1802 of 2015 (O&M)

Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated September 17, 2014, passed by Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby, an application for releasing of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. DL-3CA C-0272 on superdari was dismissed.

SHAM SUNDER 2016.01.27 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1802 of 2015 (O&M) -2 -

2. Concededly, petitioner is owner of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. DL-3CA C-0272 by way of affidavit of dated April 28, 2014, who had applied for obtaining the same on superdari subject to the condition, if any to be imposed by learned Trial Court.

3. As per the case of prosecution, 52 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the vehicle in question regarding which FIR No. 331 dated December 14, 2013 under Section 15/61/85 of NDPS Act (for brevity 'Act 1985') was registered at Police Station Sadar Patran. The police had no objection in case vehicle in question is released to the petitioner i.e. the registered owner, but learned trial Court has declined the release of vehicle on superdari simply on the ground that poppy husk weighing 52 kgs, which falls within the purview of commercial quantity has been recovered.

4. Be that as it may, ownership of the vehicle of petitioner is an admitted fact, which is also otherwise not required by investigating agency for any further investigation. The same is lying in the police station and hence, likely to be damaged with the passage of time. The mere fact that 52 kgs of poppy husk was allegedly recovered from the vehicle in question is itself no ground to decline the release of vehicle on superdari.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat; 2003 (1) RCR (Crl.) 380, it was observed that normally the vehicles should not be retained for a long time in custody, as its machinery, colour and tyres are likely to be damaged. Similar, observation was made by this Court in Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab; 2006 (4) RCR (Crl.) 719 (P&H); Roop Chand and Company v. State of Punjab; 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 401 (P&H); and Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab; 2013 (4) Law Herald 3612. SHAM SUNDER 2016.01.27 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1802 of 2015 (O&M) -3 -

6. In all these cases applications for the release of vehicle on superdari in cases under the provisions of Act 1985 was allowed.

7. In the light of aforesaid facts and discussion as well as undertaking given by the petitioner, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated September 17, 2014 is set aside. Vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3CA C-0272 is ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioner during the pendency of trial on executing personal bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Patiala. However, the trial Court shall be competent to cancel it in the event of passing any order regarding its confiscation at the time of final disposal of trial.

8. In view of order passed in the main petition, CRM No. 16431 of 2015 has become infructuous. As such, the same is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

            JANUARY 19, 2016                                        (JASPAL SINGH)
            sham                                                        JUDGE




SHAM SUNDER
2016.01.27 15:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court