Crl. Revision No. 586 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 586 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 18, 2010 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mrs. Shashi Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision has been preferred by Surjit Singh, petitioner, against the order passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, dismissing the application of the petitioner for releasing the car make Ford Icon bearing registration No. DL-3CS/7213 on superdari, which was taken into possession in FIR 44 dated 11.3.2008 registered under Sections 15, 25, 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), after 126 kgs. Poppy husk was recovered therefrom. Before the Judge, Special Court, it was never pleaded that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle. The application was opposed on the ground that this vehicle was liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act; as the same was being used for transporting the alleged poppy Crl. Revision No. 586 of 2009 2 husk. It appears from the impugned order that the judgment in Raghbir Singh @ Bera versus State of Punjab 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 343 was cited by the petitioner in support of the relief claimed, but the Judge, Special Court, did not follow the same on the ground that the operation of that judgment was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl). No. 4044 of 2007. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said Special Leave to Appeal stands dismissed, which was not disputed by the State counsel. This Court has repeatedly held that even the vehicle which is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act can be released on superdari if a case is made out for that purpose. Reference can be made to Harpreet Singh versus State of Punjab 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal 719, Nirmal Singh versus State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 986, Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 507 and Kulwant Singh Versus State of Haryana 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 828. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is no proper provision for keeping such like motor vehicles in police stations and rather those are being mis-used by the police. The car in question may be liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act, but that cannot itself be a ground for not releasing the same to the petitioner, as he can be directed to produce vehicle in Court any time. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The car is ordered to be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not dispose of the car, without first obtaining the permission of the Judge, Special Court; and Crl. Revision No. 586 of 2009 3 (ii) he shall produce the same before the Judge, Special Court, as and when required. February 18, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE