HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVI$ION NO. 454/2011 APPLBCANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS h NON-APPLICANT Raj Kumar Oyami, S/o Sri ‘ Chhannuram Oyami, Rlo 2 D.S. 467, Ambedkar Colony, Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G.). CRINHNAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 3971401 OF'THE CODE OF "/ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 361B} OF THE N.D.P.S. ACT, 1985 Aggearanca Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the appiicantXState. ORAL ORDER (1 2.08.201 1) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard on LA. No.01/201 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. ‘ According to the office report the revision is barred byt9 days of limitation. On due consideration of the submiesion made by learned State Q counsel and the grounds taken in the application, LA. No. 01/2011 is altowed and the delay in tiling the revision is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. Being aggrieved with the order 27.04.2011 passed in a remand case relating to crime no. 43/2011 of Police Station Anda, Durg, by the Session Judge, Durg, by which the Scorpio vehicle of respondent‘has been released on interim custody to the respondent/owner. mthe State has tiled this revision. Scorpio jeep bearing registration No. CG18 D/0815 was seized by the police in connection with crime'no. 43/2011 on 10.04.2011. The aforesaid crime relates to commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20 (b), 23, 25-A & 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic i,’ CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 45412011’ Substances Act. 1985. After the seizure, the owner of the vehicle made an application for releasing the vehicle on interim custody. The application was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released on the interim custody sf the respondent/ owner. Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, argued that the vehicle was indulge in illegal transportation of 33 Kg. ”Ganja“; the confiscation proceeding is also pending; therefore, the learned Session Judge was not justified in reieasing the vehicle on interim custody of the respondent/ owner. The learned Session Judge, while considering the application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama has referred to the principles lead down by the Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desar' -Vs- State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638. It was considered by the Session Court that the vehicle is machinery and there was no justification in keeping the vehicle in stationary condition in police station for a long time which is likeiy to be consumed for adjudication of the criminal case/confiscation proceedings. Relying on the above principles, the Session Judge held that it would be better to release the vehicle onVSupurdnama of the respondent, who was admittedly registered owner of the vehicle. On due consideration of the submissions made by the Govt. Advocate and the principles lead down by the Supreme Court in Sundarbhai (Supra), l am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Session Judge warranting interference bythis Court in revisional jurisdiction. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. \\ i i Sd/— ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha I Judge r i Rahui ,