Single-judge order dismissing appeal against acquittal and confiscation of vehicle due to 849-day delay and lack of proof of ownership presented in absence of counsel.
Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed; liberty granted to revive appeal if ownership is disputed.
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.
CRA No.913 SB of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No.913 SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2012
Surjit Kaur
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: None for the appellant
Mr.Ajay Gulati, DAG, Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the accused were acquitted and the vehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing registration No.PB-10P-5006, from which the recovery of contraband was recovered, was ordered to be confiscated to the State.
There is delay of 849 days in filing the appeal. Reply was filed by way of affidavit of Maha Singh Ranga, Inspector/ SHO, PS City Dabwali on behalf of the State. As per the same, the appellant did not approach the Court during the trial of the case. It is further mentioned in the reply, that as per the verification report dated 17.1.2012 from the office of District Transport Office, Ludhiana, the vehicle in question is in the name of Dhanwant Singh s/o Balwant Singh r/o 463-MIG, Jamalpur, Ludhiana. In the order dated 7.12.2011, it is mentioned that learned
CRA No.913 SB of 2009 (O&M) 2
counsel for the appellant has produced photocopy of the registration certificate as which the same, vehicle was transferred in the name of the appellant on 4.6.2005.
Neither the counsel for the appellant has caused appearance, nor any authenticated proof of the registration certificate was produced. The photocopy produced by the appellant cannot be treated as sufficient proof of ownership. The learned trial Court has already observed that nobody has come forward to claim the ownership of the car, therefore, the Court is left with no option but to order the confiscation of the car to the State. However, there is delay of 849 days in filing the present appeal.
In view of the above, the present appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
As the order is being passed in the absence of the counsel, therefore, if the factum of ownership is disputed as stated in the reply, the appellant shall have a liberty to revive the present appeal.
12.12.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE
Surjit Kaur
State of Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
