Mohanlal S/O Laxmanji Teli vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 27.4.2019 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur in Special Trial No.5/2019 thereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. to hand over the seized vehicle on supurdginama.

Brief facts of the case are that, the contraband article was recovered from the possession of co-accused Jeevansingh. The allegation against the present petitioner is that, he had given the alleged vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.GJ-23-BL-2700 to one co-accused Parmanand and co-accused Parmanand had loaded the alleged contraband in the said vehicle. On the basis of the said, a case has been registered under Section 8/15 read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner along with the co-accused. Thereafter, the petitioner has been filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, Mandsaur for given the said vehicle on supurdiginama. Learned trial court vide order dated 27.4.2019 has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the vehicle is not handed over to the petitioner on supurdiginama then the same may be damaged and also diminish its value. He further submitted that, the petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat: reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.

Learned Government Advocate has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the documents and the report, the said vehicle is a Scropio Jeep bearing No.GJ-23-BL-2700 and the same was registered with one Bharatbhai s/o Vijubhai Barot resident of Gujarat. The said vehicle was purchased by one Firoz from Bharatbhai and from Firoz the vehicle was purchased by the present petitioner. However, even after purchase of the said vehicle from Bharatbhai by Firoz, the Firoz has not registered the same in his name in the R.T.O. The present petitioner Mohanlal has also not taken any steps for transferring the said vehicle in his name. Therefore, unless and until the name of the petitioner is transferred or registered in the R.T.O. he cannot be said to be an owner of the vehicle.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appears to be just and proper. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case because in that case, the petitioner was himself the owner of the said vehicle. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the present revision stands dismissed as such.