1
Hadman Ram Dhayal vs. State of Rajasthan
S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.313/09
Date of Order : 06.04.09
HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J.
Mr.M.L.Bishnoi for the petitioner/s.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi , Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This revision petition has been filed by the owner of the
vehicle against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner
dated 09.01.09 by which he has declined to release the vehicle
bearing engine No.GA-84-D24602 and chasis No.82-D-28758
to the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision
are that from the perusal of record it reveals that on the basis
of reliable information search was conducted on 24.05.09 by
SHO, JNVC, Bikaner of the house of one Mangi Lal Bishnoi
situated at Vyas Colony ,Bikaner and it is further alleged that
opium weighing 245 Gms. was found from his pocket and
2
doda post chura weighing 58.5 Kgs. was also recovered. On
the basis of recovery of contraband items, case No.107/2008
was registered. During investigation one more accused,
Pradeep, was found involved. At his instance, the concerned
vehicle was recovered. It is alleged that contraband items were
being transported by that vehicle. The concerned police, after
formal investigation, filed challan against both the accused
persons Mangi Lal and Pradeep under sections 8/15, 8/18 and
8/29 of NDPS Act. It further reveals that the learned Sessions
Judge, while hearing the submissions at the stage of charge,
vide order dated 09.02.09 did not find the involvement of the
accused Pradeep. Therefore, vide the said order he discharged
the accused from the charges levelled against him. Before the
learned Sessions Judge, an application was moved by the
registered owner of the vehicle, stating therein that he is not
concerned with the alleged contraband item , neither he has
been charge- sheeted, nor he is an accused in the said case.
He has purchased the vehicle, the said vehicle is not involved
in this case and the vehicle recovered from Pradeep has also
been discharged. Therefore, a request was made to release
the vehicle. But the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated
3
09.01.09 refused to release the vehicle. Against that the
present revision has been filed. Notice of this revision was
given and arguments were heard.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that neither he, nor the car, was found
involved in the said case. The contraband item is allegedly
recovered from the house of accused Mangilal. The present
petitioner has no concern with the said accused and the said
vehicle is lying without proper care at the Police Station. It
was also submitted that in any case, this vehicle is not the
subject matter of the case and has no connection for the
purpose of section 60 of the NDPS Act. The learned Sessions
Judge should have released the vehicle on ‘supurdginama ‘ ,
he will abide by the terms and is ready to produce the vehicle
as and when required but the learned Sessions Judge, without
proper application of legal provisions, refused to do so. The
impugned order is liable to be quashed and urged to quash the
same and allow the revision petition and the vehicle may be
given on ‘ supurdginama’. The learned counsel, in support of
his contention also cited judgment given by this Court in
4
Usman Khan vs. State of Rajasthan [2009 (1) R,.Cr.D.326
(Raj.)].
I have also heard learned Public Prosecutor.
I have considered the rival submissions. From the
perusal of record it reveals that vide order dated 09.02.09 the
accused Pradeep has been discharged, at whose instance the
said vehicle was recovered. It further reveals from the record
that the contraband items were recovered from the house of
Mangi Lal who is facing trial. On the basis of aforesaid factual
position, without commenting anything on the merit of the
case , as the present vehicle is lying at the Police Station
without proper care and it is also alleged that the value of the
vehicle will reduce, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I deem it proper to release the vehicle to the
petitioner on ‘supurdginama ‘ as he has stated that he is the
owner of the vehicle. No other person has claimed the vehicle
before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions
Judge should have accepted his prayer, thus the impugned
order is not sustainable.
5
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 09.01.09 is liable to be quashed and the revision
deserves to be allowed.
In the net result, the impugned order is set aside and the
revision is allowed. The learned lower court is directed to give
the vehicle on ‘supurdginama’ to the petitioner, provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one
sound and solvent security of like amount, to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court, to produce the said vehicle as and when
required. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that the
petitioner shall not repeat the offence and shall keep the
vehicle in the same condition in which it is released to him, on
completing usual formalities . He will also produce attested
photo copy of the Registration Certificate and photos of car
bearing Nos.
(MANAK MOHTA), J.
l.george