1 Hadman Ram Dhayal vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.313/09 Date of Order : 06.04.09 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.M.L.Bishnoi for the petitioner/s. Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi , Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 09.01.09 by which he has declined to release the vehicle bearing engine No.GA-84-D24602 and chasis No.82-D-28758 to the petitioner. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision are that from the perusal of record it reveals that on the basis of reliable information search was conducted on 24.05.09 by SHO, JNVC, Bikaner of the house of one Mangi Lal Bishnoi situated at Vyas Colony ,Bikaner and it is further alleged that opium weighing 245 Gms. was found from his pocket and 2 doda post chura weighing 58.5 Kgs. was also recovered. On the basis of recovery of contraband items, case No.107/2008 was registered. During investigation one more accused, Pradeep, was found involved. At his instance, the concerned vehicle was recovered. It is alleged that contraband items were being transported by that vehicle. The concerned police, after formal investigation, filed challan against both the accused persons Mangi Lal and Pradeep under sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. It further reveals that the learned Sessions Judge, while hearing the submissions at the stage of charge, vide order dated 09.02.09 did not find the involvement of the accused Pradeep. Therefore, vide the said order he discharged the accused from the charges levelled against him. Before the learned Sessions Judge, an application was moved by the registered owner of the vehicle, stating therein that he is not concerned with the alleged contraband item , neither he has been charge- sheeted, nor he is an accused in the said case. He has purchased the vehicle, the said vehicle is not involved in this case and the vehicle recovered from Pradeep has also been discharged. Therefore, a request was made to release the vehicle. But the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 3 09.01.09 refused to release the vehicle. Against that the present revision has been filed. Notice of this revision was given and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither he, nor the car, was found involved in the said case. The contraband item is allegedly recovered from the house of accused Mangilal. The present petitioner has no concern with the said accused and the said vehicle is lying without proper care at the Police Station. It was also submitted that in any case, this vehicle is not the subject matter of the case and has no connection for the purpose of section 60 of the NDPS Act. The learned Sessions Judge should have released the vehicle on 'supurdginama ' , he will abide by the terms and is ready to produce the vehicle as and when required but the learned Sessions Judge, without proper application of legal provisions, refused to do so. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and urged to quash the same and allow the revision petition and the vehicle may be given on ' supurdginama'. The learned counsel, in support of his contention also cited judgment given by this Court in 4 Usman Khan vs. State of Rajasthan [2009 (1) R,.Cr.D.326 (Raj.)]. I have also heard learned Public Prosecutor. I have considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of record it reveals that vide order dated 09.02.09 the accused Pradeep has been discharged, at whose instance the said vehicle was recovered. It further reveals from the record that the contraband items were recovered from the house of Mangi Lal who is facing trial. On the basis of aforesaid factual position, without commenting anything on the merit of the case , as the present vehicle is lying at the Police Station without proper care and it is also alleged that the value of the vehicle will reduce, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the vehicle to the petitioner on 'supurdginama ' as he has stated that he is the owner of the vehicle. No other person has claimed the vehicle before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge should have accepted his prayer, thus the impugned order is not sustainable. 5 On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 09.01.09 is liable to be quashed and the revision deserves to be allowed. In the net result, the impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed. The learned lower court is directed to give the vehicle on 'supurdginama' to the petitioner, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one sound and solvent security of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, to produce the said vehicle as and when required. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that the petitioner shall not repeat the offence and shall keep the vehicle in the same condition in which it is released to him, on completing usual formalities . He will also produce attested photo copy of the Registration Certificate and photos of car bearing Nos. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george