IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.33291 -M of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2011 GURPAL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HS Jugait, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is to order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-7), passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay the entire sapurdari amount of ` 5 lacs in lieu of sapurdari bond dated 29.10.1992, furnished by the petitioner for maintaining the case property viz. bus bearing registration No.PBQ-4015. 2 The petitioner carried a revision petition, which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-8), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, S.B.S. Nagar. 3 The facts, in brief, are that FIR No.95 dated 24.10.1993 under Sections 379, 411, Indian Penal Code, was lodged at Police Station, Nawanshahr, at the instance of the Criminal Misc. No.33291 -M of 2009 (O&M) 2 petitioner in the context of theft of bus, referred to above. It appears that the bus was recovered on 29.10.1993. On recovery of the bus, the petitioner took the same on sapurdari, on furnishing of sapurdari bond to the tune of ` 5 lacs. 4 The petitioner is a partner in M/s Anandpur Sahib Bus Service (Registered). The bus was owned by the said company and the petitioner took possession of the bus in the capacity of being a partner of the transport company. 5 In the meantime, in separate proceedings, Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hoshiarpur, attached two buses of M/s Anandpur Sahib Bus Service (Registered), including the bus at issue, in the context of workmen compensation payable by the transport company. The Labour Commissioner sold the bus for collection of labour dues. 6 An application was made by a third person against the petitioner, whereupon a notice under Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, was issued to the petitioner. 7 It has been found that the petitioner did not inform the Labour Commissioner that the bus was case property and, therefore, the petitioner has been held liable to pay the sapurdari amount. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, at this juncture, the proceedings have been rendered redundant for the reason that the accused in the FIR case, who faced trial, has been acquitted vide order dated 1.12.2001. On acquittal of the accused, in any case, the bus was required to be reverted Criminal Misc. No.33291 -M of 2009 (O&M) 3 back to the owner viz. the petitioner. 9 Considering the fact that the accused, who faced trial, has been acquitted, no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings or by way of asking the petitioner to make the payment of the sapurdari amount, insomuch as the bus was admittedly owned by the petitioner and on acquittal of the accused, was to be reverted back to the petitioner. 10 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 11 Order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed. August 4, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?