In this criminal revision regarding the release of a vehicle used in a narcotics offence, the High Court referred to Santosh to hold that revisions cannot be dismissed in default and decided the matter on merit, dismissing the revision as devoid of merit.
Criminal revision dismissed; stay order, if any, stands vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 466 of 1998
Revisionist :- Union Of India
Opposite Party :- Iind Addl. Distt. Judge Kanpur Nagar And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,B.N Rai
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of revisionist.
The criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.1998 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in State Vs. Mohd. Aslam and Others, under Sections 8/21/29/27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, releasing the Maruti Van No. DDV-6010 in favour of its owner, though the vehicle has been used for committing an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. Being aggrieved with the abovesaid order, the revisionist has filed this revision.
Since the revision is very old but the same cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
Ground taken by the revisionist in this revision is that vehicle is used for carrying the Narcotics Drug. Main grievance of the revisionist is that the said vehicle should not be released in favour of the opposite party-accused.
I have perused the order dated 17.02.1998 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and it seems that said vehicle was released in favour of its registered owner during the pendency of trial. Court below has passed the abovesaid order within the purview of law and there is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and after full appreciation of fact released the vehicle. Hence, revision is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed accordingly.
Criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
A copy of this order be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 25.3.2019 Vibha Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision against the release order of the impugned vehicle can be dismissed for non-appearance of the revisionist.
Whether the order releasing the vehicle used in narcotics offence was passed within the purview of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 · Who else cites this
Union Of India
Iind Addl. Distt. Judge Kanpur Nagar And Another
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
