Crl. Revision No. 1339 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1339 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 18, 2010 Shadi Lal alias Kuldeep ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been filed by Shadi Lal- petitioner/accused against the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which he dismissed the applications filed by the present petitioner, his son Suraj Verma and wife of said son; namely, Nisha. The facts relevant for the decision of the present revision are that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of which FIR No. 552 dated 10.12.2008 under Section 18 of the Act was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. He was arrested after raid was conducted on his house, after receipt of the secret information and when the search of his house was taken 830 grams of opium was recovered from godrej storewell. In addition to that, currency notes of Rs. 1.40 lakhs and jewellery of gold, weighing 80 grams, were also recovered from the same storewell. Those currency and jewellery Crl. Revision No. 1339 of 2009 2 were taken into possession, vide recovery memo. The present petitioner, his son and wife of that son came up with three applications, claiming that cash and jewellery on the ground of ownership. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed those applications, vide aforesaid order, on the ground that all the applicants had been claiming ownership and, as such, none of them was entitled to temporary release on superdari thereof, in absence of any title of ownership. Notice of the revision was issued to the State of Haryana and the same has been contested on its behalf by Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the son of the petitioner Suraj Verma nor his wife Nisha has challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, nor they have filed any civil suit claiming the ownership of the cash amount and the jewellery, which itself shows that they are not claiming the same. It is not the case of the prosecution that those were the result of the sale proceeds of the narcotic drugs. It is the admitted fact that these articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and, as such, he is entitled to the custody thereof. He also tried to contend that such like articles should not be allowed to remain with the police for a long period. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat 2003 (1) R.C. R.(Criminal) 380. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed by learned State counsel that the prosecution has not come out with any such plea that the said cash amount is a result of sale proceeds of the narcotic drugs or that the Crl. Revision No. 1339 of 2009 3 jewellery in question was purchased with the help of any such sale proceeds and that the cash amount and the jewellery were recovered from the house of the petitioner himself. The Additional Sessions Judge was to see if the petitioner was prima facie entitled to this cash amount and the jewellery. There was inter-se dispute between the petitioner, his son and daughter-in- law and it was to be determined who had better claim to these articles. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) that the valuable property such like gold, silver should not be permitted to remain in police custody for years till trial is over and the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders, as contemplated under Section 451 of the Code at the earliest. If such like articles are not handed over on superdari, then those should be kept in bank lockers. Therefore, instead of allowing these articles to remain in the custody of the police, some orders are required to be passed. In view of the fact that this cash amount and the jewellery were recovered from the same godrej storewell, from where the opium, in respect of which the above said FIR was registered against the petitioner, was recovered, it can easily be concluded that these articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Though the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding his ownership regarding these articles, yet this possession establishes his ownership and he is entitled to get these articles on superdari on the basis of his possession itself. Accordingly, the revision is hereby accepted. The order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, is set aside and the cash amount and the gold jewellery are ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner on superdari, to the satisfaction of the Judge, Crl. Revision No. 1339 of 2009 4 Special Court, Rohtak, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall place the cash amount and the jewellery at the disposal of the Judge as and when required; and (ii) he shall not part with the same during the trial of the case. Record of the trial court be returned. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 18, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE