- (1.) The petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.HR- 06-T-9449 which was seized in FIR No. 244 dated 1.7.2011 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Matlouda, Distt. Panipat, has filed the instant revision petition challenging order dated 12.8.2011 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby his prayer to release the aforesaid vehicle on supardari to him, during the pendency of the case, has been rejected.
(2.) While passing the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat observed as under: "3. The present FIR has been lodged against the applicant for the recovery of 225 gms of charas, which was concealed by the applicant/accused in the tool box of the motorcycle. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the motorcycle is not the case property, rather it is liable to be confiscated under section 50 of the NDPS Act. The authorities cited on behalf of the applicant are distinguishable on the facts. In the present case the contraband has been recovered from the tool box of the motorcycle and the accused is stated to be in the process of throwing it away after taking out of the tool box when he was noticed by the Investigating Officer. Even as per provisions of section 60 NDPS Act the onus to prove that the person, who was in the possession of the vehicle did not have the knowledge of the contraband, is upon the said person. The matter would be different if the motorcycle belonged to some other person and the contraband was recovered without the knowledge of the rider in which he would be free to prove before the Court that he was not in the knowledge of the contraband. In the present case, it is not so. In these circumstances, the present application in hand for releasing the vehicle used in the transportation of contraband cannot be allowed and same is accordingly dismissed at this stage. Papers be tagged at the back of the challan."
(3.) Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 4 RCR(Cri) 548, Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 4 RCR(Cri) 719 and Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 1 RCR(Cri) 986, to contend that in the cases relating to NDPS Act, this Court has allowed the seized vehicle to be given on sapurdari to the owner, during the pendency of trial. It has also been contended that if the vehicle is allowed to stand in the police station, it would make it unfit for road worthiness and its machinery, colour and tyres would be damaged. Since the trial of the case is likely to take a long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle parked in the premises of the Police Station. Moreover, the petitioner can always be put to terms by the Court while 1releasing the vehicle on supardari and the petitioner shall be under legal obligation to comply with the said conditions.;