CRR No. 342 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 342 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.05.2011 Simranjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, 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 under Section 401 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Mansa, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner for release of the vehicle Maruti Zen Car No. HR 51D 9542 along with other documents on superdari has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Kulwinder Singh is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The said Kulwinder Singh has also filed affidavit dated 05.03.2011, stating therein, that he has no objection if the ownership of the said vehicle is transferred in the name of the petitioner and also that the present petitioner has paid the full and final payment and nothing is due against the vehicle. The said CRR No. 342 of 2011 2 affidavit is further strengthened by the Special Power of Attorney given by the original owner i.e Kulwinder Singh in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that in spite of the affidavit and special power of attorney, the petitioner was not able to have the said vehicle transferred in his name as the registration certificate of the vehicle in question was with the Police. Learned State counsel, however, pointed out that the police will have no objection if the custody of the said vehicle is handed over to the Kulwinder Singh, who is the original owner as the petitioner is only a special power of attorney holder. Heard. The police report has been placed on record as Annexure P3. As per the said report, it is not disputed that the said special power of attorney has been given in the name of the present petitioned by Kulwinder Singh, registered owner of the said vehicle. It is also not disputed that the owner of the vehicle i.e. Kulwinder Singh has also executed affidavit dated 05.03.2011, stating therein, that the present petitioner has in fact paid the entire amount towards the purchase of vehicle Maruti Zen Car No. HR 51D 9542. Thus, if the said affidavit is to be taken into consideration, it would imply that the petitioner for all intents and purposes is the owner of the said vehicle though he is not a registered owner of the same. The police has also not disputed the special power of attorney or the said affidavit. In such a situation, if the vehicle is allowed to stand in the Police Station, it would make the vehicle unfit for road worthiness. Its machinery, colour and CRR No. 342 of 2011 3 tyres would be damaged. The trial of the case is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of the Police Station. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that as and when the Court would require the aforementioned vehicle, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court. Reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (2) Criminal Court Cases 0176 and Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana reported as 2007(2) Criminal Court Cases 0327, wherein, in the similar circumstances, the vehicle was released on superdari. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Mansa is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released to the petitioner on superdari on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking to the effect that as and when the trial Court would require the said vehicle, the petitioner will produce the same in the same condition at his own cost before the concerned Court. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that in future, he will not use the said vehicle for such an offence. Allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 12.05.2011 mohan