IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.2968 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.1.2011 Gurbhej Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by JMIC, Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which the application of the petitioner for superdari of alleged case property has been dismissed. While challenging the said impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contract of the petitioner would expire on 31st of March 2011 and thereafter he cannot even dispose of the said case property which require licence etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is ready to deposit the cost/value of the alleged case property in case the same is released on superdari. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the present petitioner. Heard. It is not disputed that the alleged case property was recovered from the adjoining third shop as already mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner further admits that the said case property belongs to him. In case, Crl. R. No.2968 of 2010 -2- the matter is decided against the petitioner, the said case property shall stand forfeited to the State. The same can be safeguarded by depositing the amount equal to the value of the seized liquor. However, on the other hand, in case the matter is finally decided in favour of the petitioner, the case property will be released to the petitioner. However, by that time, it may be too late as the licence/contract of the petitioner expires on 31.3.2011 and therefore he may not be able to dispose of the property which requires licence. The same will result in great loss and injustice to the petitioner. In order to ensure that no injustice is caused to either side, it would be just and proper, if the petitioner is directed to deposit the cost/value as security in lieu of the liquor i.e. the case property as assessed by the concerned DETC for releasing the same on superdari. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to release the alleged case property on superdari subject to deposit of cost/value of the 'case property' as assessed by the concerned DETC and any other condition as imposed by the trial Court. 19.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE