M/s. Satpal and Yaspal Vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.@mdashThe present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Special Court, Amritsar, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner for sapurdari of Bolero Car has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 319 dated 25.12.2012 u/s 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act was registered at Police Station Division-A, Amritsar. Accused Jai Pal Singh was working as a driver with petitioner-firm and was driving the said vehicle No. PB02-BS-9657. The police found some in toxic material in plastic bag and liquor from the said car and the car was also confiscated in the above said case. During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved for release of vehicle on sapurdari on the ground that the vehicle was lying in the police custody without any purpose.

2. Notice in the application was issued to the State and a report was also called for from the police station where the vehicle was confiscated. As per report, the Incharge of Police Station was not having any objection in releasing the car on sapurdari. The application moved by the petitioner was dismissed vide Order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has been dismissed without taking into consideration the report and also the undertaking given by the petitioner that the petitioner will not sell or transfer the vehicle during pendency of the trial and also undertook to produce the same on each and every date as and when required by the trial Court. Learned counsel also submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the police station and if the vehicle is allowed to stand there, its machinery, colour and tyres would deteriorate with the passage of time. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready to comply with all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dalbir @ Pappu @ Dara Vs. State of Haryana in support of his contention.

5. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.

7. Admittedly, the trial is in progress and the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that the car was used for transportation of narcotic substance and the trial is yet to begin. As per ratio of judgments in Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 548, Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in case, the vehicle is not released on sapurdari, the same will be unfit for road worthiness and its machinery, colour and tyres would deteriorate. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of police station. Admittedly, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and the car will be made available as and when required by the trial Court. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions, to be imposed upon him, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar is set aside. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to release the vehicle, in question, on sapurdari by imposing the conditions as it may deem fit.