CRR No. 1110 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1110 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.05.2011 Suresh Chander Gupta ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Gurveen H Singh, Addl. A G Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision against the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala, dismissing the application of the petitioner for release of Eicher Canter bearing registration No. UP 86 F 9566 on superdari. While rejecting the application, the Judge, Special Court has held that heavy quantity of contraband was allegedly being carried in the vehicle in question and therefore, it was not a fit case to release the vehicle in question on superdari. It is not disputed that the said vehicle belongs to the present CRR No. 1110 of 2010 2 petitioner and that he is the registered owner of the same. Therefore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the vehicle in question if kept in the Police Station, the same is likely to get damaged and the condition of the same will deteriorate further if it is not properly maintained and used. This Court in the case of Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 548 while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 60(3) and 63 as well as Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held in para 6 as under:- “Notice has to be taken of the provisions of Section 51 of the Act which expressly provides that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act. The above quoted provisions of Section 60(3) of the Act clearly lay emphasis on the liability for confiscation of the conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub Section (1) or sub Section (2) but at the same time provides that the liability can be avoided where the owner of the conveyance is able to prove that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or by his agent. Understandably, at this stage the Court would require the evidence to be led unless the State admits the stand of the person applying under these provisions. Section 63 of the Act also pointedly makes reference to the situation where any article or thing seized under the Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or 61 or 62 of the Act but the person committing the offence stated therein is not known or cannot be found. In such situation, the CRR No. 1110 of 2010 3 Court has to hold an inquiry to decide such liability before ordering confiscation. That being the position, the resort to Section 451 of the Code which deals with the passing of the order for custody of the conveyance during the trial cannot be construed as violating the provisions of Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act.” Trial is going on, Thus, provision of Section 451 of the Code will apply. Taking into account the facts of the present case as well as the fact that no serious objection has been raised, the Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala was not justified in declining the prayer of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala, is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released to the petitioner on superdari as an interim measures on his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court as also any other condition which shall be imposed by the Special Court while releasing the vehicle on superdari. It is also made clear that an undertaking shall be furnished by the petitioner to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the police or the Court during the trial of the case and shall not transfer the vehicle by any means during the period it remains on superdari. Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 26.05.2011 mohan