Factual Matrix

1. The petitioner is the registered owner of Ford Endeavour being registration No.DL 3C AY 5481 which was stolen on 20th February, 2009 whereupon FIR No.56/2009 was registered by P.S. Defence Colony. On 20th July, 2009, the car was recovered by the police from the accused persons and it was released by the Court to the petitioner on superdari on 4th August, 2009. The trial against the accused persons is still pending.

2. On 5th June, 2013, the petitioner moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for permission to sell the vehicle on the grounds that it was more than 5 years old, it required lot of maintenance/repair and its market value had depreciated.

3. Vide order dated 19th September, 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner to sell the vehicle in question subject to the condition that the prospective/intending purchaser shall execute the superdari bond to produce the vehicle as and when required. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:-

“...It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the vehicle in question bearing registration No.DL-3CAY-5481 is the subject matter of the instant case as it was taken away from the possession the complainant. The same has been released on superdari to Harjeet Singh authorised by the applicant/owner Manjeet Singh. It is now submitted that the owner wants to sell the vehicle in question as it has become too old and its market value is also depreciating. The vehicle being more than five years old has become white elephant, very expensive to maintain as such the applicant/owner may be permitted to sell the same on the terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case is still pending and it may require the production of the vehicle in question, therefore, the application for selling the vehicle may not be allowed. Vehicle is being used by the owner the way it is to be used and pendency of the case is no impediment.

In order to supplement his contentions, counsel for the applicant has further contended that photographs of the vehicle or appropriate Punchnama may be prepared and the applicant may be permitted to sell the vehicle as the victim would be unnecessarily be burdened to maintain it and depreciation would cause unnecessary loss, which he does not want to suffer. In view of the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638, it is submitted that the vehicle may be allowed to be sold without any condition of superdari.

So far as the proposition laid down in the judgment above referred is concerned, there cannot be any two opinions. However, this judgment nowhere says that the permission to sell is to be given invariably. The judgment primarily talks of allowing the owner to use a particular object but the same shall remain on superdari bond. The permission to sell is required to be given only in those cases where the case property is of perishable nature. The vehicle in question since does not fall into the perishable category and it is only five-six years old. Normally an automobile is kept and maintained for decades in this country. Therefore, in such circumstances, the application moved on behalf of the applicant does not have any sound basis, especially when it is with him for his use without there being any restrictions.

The case is still pending and the vehicle in question may be required during the evidence. The possibility that the accused from whose possession it has been allegedly recovered may also stake a claim which depends upon the outcome of the case and above all, the contentions that the vehicle has become useless or very expensive to maintain does not goes down well in view of the fact that it is merely five years old. Therefore, in such circumstances, when the vehicle would be required during the proceedings of the case and production of the vehicle cannot