Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Gurinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-2322-2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sagar Dangi, Mr. J.P. Jangu
For the Respondents: Mr. T.P. Singh
Court emphasized prompt action for the release of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration and allowed a delay in filing based on the need for compliance with conditions.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 98 days in filing revision petition allowed - The court emphasizes the necessity of prompt action and the release of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration due to prolonged custody. (Paras 1, 7-9)
(B) NDPS Act - Sections 15(c), 25, 29 - Vehicle recovery and superdari - The court noted the importance of immediate action regarding seized vehicles to avoid their depreciation and ordered the release of the petitioner's vehicle while imposing conditions to safeguard against misuse. (Paras 2-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the release of a truck seized due to the NDPS Act, asserting ownership and immediate need for the vehicle to avoid its depreciation.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that allowing the release of the vehicle on superdari was appropriate under specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicle should be released back to its registered owner given the delay and circumstances surrounding its seizure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that seized vehicles should not remain in custody indefinitely, increasing the need for prompt decisions to facilitate their release under stringent conditions to prevent deterioration.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of expedient action regarding seized vehicles. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. petitioner’s ownership and the pending application for vehicle release. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's order for vehicle release on specified conditions. (Para 10) |
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate for Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior DAG Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL CRM-46129-2024 The prayer in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the present revision petition.
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 98 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
CRR-2322-2024 The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Gurinder bearing FIR No.392 dated 24.12.2020 under Section 15(c), 25, 29, 59 of NDPS Act (Sections 7, 7A, 8 of (Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 192, 196, 201, 202, 203, 217, 406, 166-A IPC added later on) at P.S. Uchana, District Jind (Annexure P-1) vide which the prayer of the petitioner for the release of the vehicle bearing no.HR-45-C-9998 has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR came to be registered and the recovery of 398 Kgs and 150 grams of Dodda Post came to be effected.
3. The petitioner filed an application for releasing the vehicle bearing no.HR-45-C-9998 on superdari which application has been dismissed. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck and is in need of the same. If the truck is not released on superdari it’s value would dimmish on a day to day basis. The petitioner is willing to satisfy any condition imposed by this court.
5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand while referring to the reply dated 20.01.2025 contends that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the present application. He contends that the vehicle would not be released on superdari as it is likely to be misused. He however has not disputed the factual position that the said vehicle is in custody of the police since
04.12.2020.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
7. In Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai 's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“ 15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to t
