AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned
Public Prosecutor.
This revision petition has been preferred against the order
dated 15.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
No.1, Barmer whereby application filed under section 457 Cr.PC
for custody of the vehicle No.RJ-04-GB-0247 claimed by the
petitioner has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
contraband article was being transported while the vehicle was
seized. As per the provisions of section 60 of the NDPS Act only
vehicles carrying contraband articles under the NDPS Act are liable
to be confiscated. Thus, the vehicle in dispute was not required
to be confiscated. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner purchased the vehicle from its registered owner Dinesh
Kumar vide sale agreement on 25.03.2015. Learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 Dinesh Kumar also admits this fact
that the vehicle was sold by Dinesh Kumar prior to the date of
seizure to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer saying that when the vehicle was seized, it was found
carrying Rs.2,11,110/- which was intended to be used to purchase
poppy-husk. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a
registered owner of the vehicle.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by rival parties. In the order impugned dated
15.09.2016, it has been mentioned that no contraband article has
been recovered from the vehicle when it was seized.
In view of above, the petitioner appears entitled to have
custody of the vehicle since, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle
has been purchased by the petitioner on 25.03.2015 by way of a
sale agreement but condition is required to be imposed on the
petitioner to get registration certificate of the said vehicle
transferred in his name within a period of one month positively
after obtaining custody whereof.
In view of whatever stated above, the revision petition is
allowed while setting aside the order impugned dated 15.09.2015.
It is further directed that the vehicle be released in favour of the
petitioner on furnishing of Supurdginama in the sum of rupees five
lacs with a surety of like amount with the stipulation that he will
get registration certificate transferred in his name within a period
of one month from obtaining possession of the vehicle and will
produce and continue to do so the said vehicle before the trial
court whenever required during trial, will not handover/ dispose
off the same and will keep it intact till the disposal of the trial and
the appeal, if preferred.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.