Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

Anita Chaudhary, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala vide which his application for releasing the tractor bearing No. PB57B-9212 on superdari, has been dismissed.

The tractor in question has been seized by the police in case FIR No. 55 dated 03.06.2013, registered under Sections 379 IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,(for brevity, "1957 Act") Police Station Ghoman, as it was allegedly used in stealing sand from the river by the petitioner.

In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the local police was having no objection in releasing the tractor in favour of the petitioner. However, the Court below, while relying upon certain directions issued by this Court on 14.12.2012, in CWP No. 18377 of 2012, dismissed the application by observing that the vehicle seized by the police while illegally transporting the sand is liable to be confiscation as per Sections 4 and 4-A of 1957 Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial is going on and it will take long time to conclude and it would not be in the fitness of things to keep the tractor unattended in the police station and it would become a junk. Reliance has been placed on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 380.

He further contends that this Court in similar circumstances has ordered release of vehicles used in the cases under the 1957 Act. Reference has been made to Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 1638 of 2013, decided on 31.07.2013, Bobby Masih Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 3623 of 2013, decided on 09.12.2013 and Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No. 2144 of 2013, decided on 13.01.2014.

No doubt the vehicles seized under the 1957 Act are liable to be confiscation as per directions issued by this Court, but the trial of the case is still going on and it would take number of years together to conclude. It has still to be decided whether it was used in transporting illegal sand from the river and its confiscation would depend upon the fate of the trial. Keeping the vehicle in question for such an indefinite period would reduce it to scrap. The police has also no objection in releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things if the vehicle in question is released to the petitioner.

In view of the above, instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.10.2013 is set aside. The tractor in question is ordered to be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner, who is its registered owner, subject to his furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the Court below on the terms and conditions imposed upon him by the Court and on filing of specific undertaking that he would produce the tractor in question as and when required by the Court and he will not sell the same and will not use it for commission of the offence under the 1957 Act. It is also made clear that the issue regarding confiscation of the tractor in question would be taken at the time of the final decision.