- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The applicant moved an application for release of his Fiat Car No. MH-03/h-5123 in his favour.
(2.) I have heard Sri Veer Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri S. N. Srivaslava, learned. Counsel for Union of India and the AG A. According to the case of the prosecution 5. 100 kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the said Car. The applica tion was moved by the applicant for release of his car, which has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by an order dated 11-8-2000. Aggrieved by it the present revision has been preferred. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that he is not an accused in this case. That the vehicle has not been confiscated. That the applicant had no knowledge that the contraband Ganja was being taken by the said car. That therefore, the car should be released in favour of the applicant.
(3.) AS against this, the learned Coun sel for Union of India has relied on my decision in the case of Smt. Neelima Pathak v. Spl. and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur and another, 1999 (38) ACC page 924,1999 (2) JIC 243 (A11 ). In this case 20 kgs. con traband Ganja was recovered from the vehicle. On these facts the vehicle was not released. In the case before me Fiat Car No. HM-03/h-5123 was found standing in front of the house of accused Ram Sakal and the keys of the said vehicle were recovered from Ram Sakal by which the car was opened and 5. 100 kgs Ganja was also recovered from the Diggi of the car. Ram Sakal is the grand-father of the ap plicant. It cannot be accepted that the Ganja was being transported by the vehicle without the knowledge of the applicant. On the other hand it is alleged by the prosecution that the entire family is in volved in the transportation of contraband Ganja. The car is no doubt, in the name of the applicant, but his grand- father was transporting the contraband Ganja in the said car.;