Crl.Revision No.914 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No.32208 of 2008 and Crl.Revision No.914 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.4.2009 Bhilwara Ludhiana Roadlines and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for petitioner no.1. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for petitioner no.2. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Crl.Misc.No.32208 of 2008 Prayer in this application is to implead M/s Modern Threads (I) Ltd., having its registered office at A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, as co-petitioner no.2. Neither petitioner no.1 nor the State of Punjab has raised any objection to the aforementioned prayer. Allowed as prayed for. M/s Modern Threads (I) Ltd., having its registered office at A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, is impleaded as petitioner no.2. Crl.Revision No.914 of 2008 Counsel for petitioners no.1 and 2 challenge the order dated 30.4.2008, passed by the Special Judge, Moga, dismissing an application Crl.Revision No.914 of 2008 2 filed by petitioner no.1 for release of the goods being transported in Canter No.PB-10-AP 9668. Counsel for petitioner no.1 submits that the petitioner is a booking agent. A truck belonging to one Kulwant Singh S/o Jagroop Singh was hired for transporting goods belonging to petitioner no.2, from Bhilwara to Ludhiana. Unfortunately, the truck was apprehended by the police and 30 bags of poppy husk were seized. As a consequence, the police also seized the goods being transported in the truck. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioners are not linked to the offence and even if narcotics were placed beneath these goods, there is no reason to decline their release. The learned court below, should, therefore, have ordered release of the goods. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that as these goods were used to camouflage narcotics and would, therefore, be liable to confiscation under Section 61 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The petitioners prayer for release of their goods on sapurdari was declined on the ground that as investigation was at its initial stage, it would not be appropriate to release the articles mentioned in the application. It appears that the learned court below was unaware of the fact that the petitioners are not arrayed as accused and that matters with respect to sapurdari are to be considered expeditiously. The discretion, however, to order release or not vests with the trial court and when dealing with seizures affected under the N.D.P.S. Act, within the parameters set out under Crl.Revision No.914 of 2008 3 Sections 60,61 and 63 of the Act if applicable. In view of what has been stated herein above, the order dated 30.4.2008 is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application for sapurdari afresh, after taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the fact that the petitioners have not been arraigned as accused and all other relevant material that the petitioners may place before the trial court. Liberty is granted to petitioner no.2, to file an appropriate application for release of his goods. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.5.2009. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. 18.4.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE