Crl. Rev. No.1936 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.1936 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: November 14, 2011 M/s Turbofix Engineers and Consultants .....Petitioner VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This petition is filed by M/s Turbofix Engineers and Consultants against the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, which has imposed certain conditions on the purchase of turbine, which is released to the petitioner on superdari. It is noticed in the impugned order that turbine has already been examined by technical expert, who has submitted his report. It is also noticed that the turbine is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, it was stated before the Court that there was no bar for the applicant-Bureau to dispose of the turbine in question. Since the turbine was released on superdari, the Court had issued direction that it will remain on superdari and if sold, Crl. Rev. No.1936 of 2010 -2- the purchaser shall have to execute the fresh superdarinama that he will not further sell the turbine in question without permission of the Court and that he cannot affect any change in the shape and size of the turbine. However, he could carry out minor repairs and painting etc. for maintenance of the said turbine as per the directions. Directions further were not to change the colour of the turbine. The petitioner was required to produce the turbine before the Court as and when required. The permission to sell otherwise was accorded. As per the counsel, the conditional direction to sell the turbine as granted virtually amounts to declining the permission for the same. Since the trial is in progress, the trial Court has to ensure that if needed this machine may be available for inspection or any other such purpose so that the accused person does not obtain any advantage on account of absence of turbine. However, the counsel for the petitioner is justified in making a grievance that no buyer is ready to accept the condition as imposed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has some ready purchaser. The other condition like requiring the purchaser to give an undertaking that he will keep it on superdarinama and not sell further etc. shall for the time being will remain in abeyance. However, the petitioner shall take permission of the Court as and when he has a ready purchaser for purchasing the machine. The Court shall reconsider and grant such permission on the conditions considered appropriate. The Court may consider whether there is any need to impose a condition for keep it on superdari or for not selling it further upon certain conditions. If the condition imposed at that time is considered not acceptable or the petitioner has any grievance against any such condition, if Crl. Rev. No.1936 of 2010 -3- imposed, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge that order. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. November 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE