Criminal Misc. No. M-23028 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23028 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.8.2011. Vinod Goyal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated June 13th, 2011 passed by Sh. Manpreet Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad whereby he dismissed the application filed by the complainant-petitioner seeking permission to use the amount, that is, Rs.10,71,000/- released on superdari to him. 2. Facts. On June 3rd, 2011 petitioner sent Surjit Singh-Gunman and Driver to get the cheque amounting to Rs.10,71,000/- en-cashed from the State Bank of Patiala NH-3 Branch, Faridabad. The cheque was encashed. On their way back, three unidentified persons attacked them and snatched the amount from them. In defence, they fired shot upon them. None of the accused received any injury. They fled away from the scene after leaving the amount of Rs.10,71,000/- on the spot. First Information Report No.138 dated June 3rd, 2011 was registered under Section 392, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 in Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad. The amount was taken into possession by the Police. 3. By order dated June 4th, 2011 trial Magistrate released the amount on superdari to the petitioner. The order reads Criminal Misc. No. M-23028 of 2011 2 as under:- “Superdar is directed not to alienate, sale or change the colour of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial and shall be produced before Court or police as and when required. You are further directed to take photographs/photocopies of cash amount and be put on record.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application (Annexure P-3) seeking permission to use the cash amount lying with him. As stated aforesaid, by the impugned order, said application was dismissed. 5. Learned Court below has dismissed the application on the ground the cash amount is a case property and the petitioner has undertaken at the time of furnishing superdarinama that he would produce the amount before the Court as and when required. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as on date, the accused have not been arrested and it will serve no useful purpose if the petitioner is required to keep the amount with him till the conclusion of trial. 7. This Court concurs with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned trial Magistrate fell in error while not considering the fact that it is a case of robbery. The amount in question is not a case property as it is in the corruption cases etc. At the trial, identity of the currency notes is not to be established because it is the case of prosecution that accused attempted to rob the amount. The complainant is a victim and if he is not permitted to use his own money then it will serve no purpose rather the same would add to the miseries of the victim. 8. So far as the condition imposed by the Court below “not to alienate, sale or change the colour of the vehicle” is concerned, the same shows non-application of mind on the part of the trial Magistrate. How one can change the colour of the currency notes. It were currency notes and not a vehicle which were released on supardari. The trial Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the fact that use of money will not affect the case. In the end, if the Criminal Misc. No. M-23028 of 2011 3 Court comes to the conclusion that the complainant was not entitled to it, he can be directed to re-imburse the payment but the same currency notes are not required to be given. The impugned order was obviously passed in a mechanical manner. 9. In view of above, present petition is accepted, order under challenge is set-aside. The complainant will be free to use the amount in question. 10. Some Judicial Officers have readymade formats of orders and it is left to Stenos to type a particular format of an order. This is reprehensible. Judicial Officers must apply mind while passing orders whether they relate to superdari or something else. Otherwise ludicrous orders, like the present one, are likely to be typed by the Stenos and signed by the Judicial Officer. It will be in the own interest of the Judicial Officers to avoid such ridiculous situation. 11. This Court would like to observe that while releasing the amount to petitioner, the Magistrate did not apply his mind at all because he passed the order not to alienate, sale or change the colour of the vehicle during pendency of the trial. It appears that the order was passed on the format already prepared while deciding the application to release the property on supardari. As a caution, this Court would like that a copy of this order be sent to Sessions Judge, Faridabad to confront the Magistrate and advise him not to pass any such order in future not in the case of supardari etc. but otherwise also. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.8.2011. SN