CRM No. M 17541 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 17541 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 Angrej Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, imposing a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- upon the petitioner for not producing the Truck in case FIR No. 119 dated 23.09.2004 under Sections 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo and also for quashing of the order dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, Bathinda, dismissing the revision petition CRM No. M 17541 of 2009 2 of the petitioner. FIR No. 119 dated 23.09.2004 under Sections 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda was registered against the petitioner and the truck involved in controversy bearing registration No. RJ-13G-7285 was also taken into custody by the Police of Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. On the application moved by the petitioner, the truck in question was released on superdari by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 14.01.2009, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate cancelled the superdari of the aforesaid Truck as the petitioner did not produce the Truck in the Court when asked to do so and, accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- upon the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bathinda vide impugned order dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure P2). It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the order dated 14.01.2009, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 04.02.2009 and was directed to produce the Truck by 10.02.2009. He requested the trial court to grant him reasonable time to produce the aforesaid truck as the truck was out of State. However, the same was only granted uptill 10.02.2009. Since the truck was out of State, the petitioner was not able to produce the same on 10.02.2009. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- was imposed. After the passing of the order dated 10.02.2009 imposing CRM No. M 17541 of 2009 3 penalty, his truck was also taken into custody by the police and sold the same under the directions of the trial Court and the sale proceeds thereof have been forfeited in favour of the State. It is not disputed that the trial has since been concluded and the accused has already been convicted. It is also admitted that the said truck was sold in a public auction for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- and sale proceeds has been deposited in the Government Treasury. It is not a case where the petitioner has sold the Truck or that the same was misused by him. It is only a case where the petitioner was not able to produce the truck on a particular date as the same was out of State on the required date. As the truck has since been impounded and sold in a public auction under the direction of the Court, accordingly, in the interest of justice and by taking a lenient view, the present petition is partly allowed and the order dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, is modified qua the quantum of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. The penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the amount towards the sale proceeds of the aforesaid Truck, already deposited in the Government Treasury be released to the petitioner forthwith after deducting Rs.50,000/- as a penalty amount. Partly allowed in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.07.2010 mohan