IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2009 Date of decision : August 11, 2009 Sakir ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Sakir one of the accused has filed this revision petition to assail order dated 30.9.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 16.10.2008, thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner for release of Dumper No. HR27-J-0806 on sapurdari. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and some other persons were transporting beef in a vehicle which was seized by the police. Front number plate of the vehicle had the number as HR27G-0806 and the rear number plate had the number as GJ-16V-3841. Engine and Chassis number of the vehicle were also found to have been defaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle No. HR27J-0806 and it is said vehicle Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2009 -2- which has been seized by the police. Learned State counsel on the other hand contended that neither number plate on the vehicle had Number HR27J-0806 nor the petitioner can be said to be registered owner of the seized vehicle as Chassis Number and Engine Number thereof stands defaced. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The petitioner is facing trial along with others in case FIR No. 185 dated 3.8.3008 under sections 307, 353, 332, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, under sections 2/3, 5/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad. The vehicle is lying in custody of the police for the last more than one year. The vehicle would become junk if allowed to continue to lie in the Malkhana during trial of the case which would take long time. There is no other claimant of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner and his co-accused. No other co-accused has claimed this vehicle. In fact nobody else has come to claim the vehicle. The vehicle is liable to be confiscated for the involvement in the offence of this case. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned orders of courts below are set aside and the aforesaid vehicle is ordered to be released on sapurdari to the petitioner subject to usual terms and conditions on furnishing sapurdginama with two sureties in the sum of Rs 5 lacs each. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 11, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'