Kuldeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2012, passed by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Moga, whereby the application for release of the Tempo (Chhota Hathi) No. PB-29D-TY 5426, owned by the petitioner, on sapurdari was declined. The brief facts of the case are that illegal contrabands i.e. 1500 bottles of Recodex, 600 bottles of Rexcof and 1,15,000 microlit tablets were recovered from the tempo in question, which was being driven by the present petitioner. He is stated to be on bail. The tempo in question is owned by the present petition.

Heard.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. CM Mudaliar AIR 2003 SC 638, the Hon''ble Supreme Court framed the following guidelines regarding the case property:-

The powers u/s 451 Cr. P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve purposes namely:-

Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and

This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

In the order dated 8.9.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, Moga, it has been recorded that the as per the police report, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 8.9.2012 is set aside. The Tempo (Chhota Hathi) No. PB-29D-TY 5426, owned by the present petitioner, is ordered to be released on sapurdari to its registered owner to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court, Moga. The petitioner will not sell the vehicle in question without permission of the Court.