HC RJ allowed a criminal revision petition to quash an order dismissing the petitioner's application for release of a seized motorcycle. The court released the vehicle on ^supurdginama^ with security and conditions.
Impugned order dated 20.09.2021 quashed; vehicle released on _supurdginama^ with Rs. 5 lakh bond from petitioner and two sureties.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1175/2021
Badambai W/o Ramesh, Resident Of Mahuwakho Police Station Aklera District Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioner/Registered Owner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
02/12/2021
This criminal revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jhalawar, whereby, the application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle(motorcycle) has been dismissed.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and there is no other rival claim for its release. The court below has dismissed the application for supurdgi filed by the petitioner on the ground that the matter relates to the N.D.P.S. Act. The court below did not appreciate the fact that if the vehicle is lying in the police station then it will be damaged. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the motorcycle seized in FIR No.180/2021, registered at Police Station Sarola, District Jhalawar be released on supurdgi subject to the conditions which may be imposed.
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1175/2021]
Learned counsel has further submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 290 and a co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.445/2021 have held that the vehicle can be given on supurdgi to the registered owner on furnishing ‘ supurdginama’ if no order of confiscation has been passed, which has not been passed in the present case.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition and has submitted that the vehicle in question was used for commission of the offence under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and can be subject matter of confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle in her favour. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report according to which in the present FIR, accused-Banwari and Ramesh have been arrested. Investigation is pending. Statements of vehicle owner (Smt. Badambai) have been recorded.
Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated till date.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
It is admitted that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question which has not been claimed by any other person and no confiscation order has been passed in the matter, even the confiscation proceedings have not been initiated.
In these circumstances, Criminal Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
Impugned order dated 20.09.2021 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the seized vehicle-motorcycle (Chasis No.
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1175/2021]
MBLHAW12434819285 Engine No.HA11 EYAM811081) be released in favour of the petitioner on ‘ supurdginama’ on her producing original registration certificate and satisfying following conditions :-
(i) She furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so.
(ii) She shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.
(iii) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and her sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.
(iv) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Hemant/57
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a vehicle seized in a case under the NDPS Act can be released on _supurdgi_ to the registered owner when no confiscation order has been passed.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for release of the vehicle was properly passed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of GujaratReferred¶16
(2002) 10 SCC 290 · Who else cites this
Unknown Case in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.445/2021Referred¶16
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.445/2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Badambai W/o Ramesh
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
