Dismissed

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC27 Jul 2017CRLR/1621/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of a request to release a Bolero vehicle on surrender. The court held the petitioner, who carried narcotic drugs and held his father-in-law's power of attorney, had knowledge of the transportation, baring release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for release of vehicle on surrender was rejected.

Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1621 / 2016

¶3

Hari Singh S/o Shri Rajpal, by caste Jat, resident of Jatwada, Thana Khedli Ganj, District Alwar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

27/07/2017

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition vide order dated 03.09.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bayana, Bharatpur, whereby, application filed by the petitioner for release of Bolero bearing Registration No.RJ-05 UA 3429 was rejected.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Shri Omprakash was the registered owner of the vehicle and petitioner was alloted the power of attorney. Omprakash was not aware that the vehicle was being used for transportation of narcotic drugs and thus the vehicle should have been released on supurdagi.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that there is a specific bar under Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and any conveyance which is used for transporting the psychotropic

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLR-1621/2016]

¶18

substances is liable for confiscation, if the transportation is in the knowledge of the owner or his agent and the person in-charge of the vehicle.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

In the present case in hand, the petitioner was arrested carrying narcotic drugs in the bolero. Petitioner himself is nominated and carrying the power of attorney of Omprakash. Thus the transportation was in the knowledge of Hari Singh, the present petitioner.

¶21

Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on supurdagi. No grounds is made out.

¶22

The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶24

Arti/77

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reeta Kumari Vs State Education Departmentors

Raju Lal @ Rajendra Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hanuman Prasad Yadav and Another Vs R N Mehrotra and Others

Mahaveer Prasad Carpentar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Pappu Chand Gupta andANR Vs State Urban Developmentanr

Mangal Singh and Anr. Vs District Collector and Anr.