Sunil Kumar Garg, J.- - (1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner with a prayer that the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which he rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner for taking truck bearing No.RJ-09-G-2237 on Supurdginama by quashed and set aside and the said truck be given to him on such terms and conditions as the Court deems fit.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances:- On 25.2.2003, SHO, Peepal Khunt district Banswara received an information through Mukhbir that the truck in question would go from Pratapgarh and would go to Banswara Having Doda-post and on that information, Nakabandi was made and when the said truck was to be passed from that way, it was stopped by police and on search 70 bags of Doda-post were recovered and a case under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1985" was registered and investigation started. During investigation, the truck was seized by the police. Since, the accused-petitioner was also the owner of the truck, he was made one of the accused in that case. After that challan was fled in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara for the offences u/s.8/18, of the Act of 1985. 3-4. Thereafter, after filing the challan, an application u/s 451 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-petitioner on 6.1.2004 before the Court of Sessions Judge (NDPS) Cases, Banswara and in that application, it was mentioned that on 23.2.2003, one driver Raju Chachi had taken that truck on hire from his son and since, the accused-petitioner was registered owner of that truck, therefore, during the pendency of the trial, the truck in question by handed over to him on Supurdginama. That application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge (NDPS) Cases, Banswara through order dated 7.1.2004 on the ground inter alia that no law was placed before him showing that the vehicle seized under the Act of 1985 could be given on Supurdginama. 5. The main case of the accused-petitioner is that there are so many authorities on the point that even a vehicle is seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985, the same could be released on Supurdginama during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, this miscellaneous petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 7.1.2004 be quashed. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the property seized during the investigation should not be kept at Police Station for a longer period, otherwise the article in question would be destroyed. Thus, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the Police Station for a longer time and Magistrate is competent to pass appropriate orders for releasing the property seized after taking appropriate bond and guarantee as a security under the provision of Section 451 Cr.P.C. 7. This Court in Bal Mikand S/o Bithal Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 4 , and in Khema v. State, 1999 WLC (Raj.)UC 273 , has observed that even the vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985 can be released on Supurdginama to the rightful owner. Thus, finding of the learned trial Judge in the impugned order dated 7.1.2004 that under the provisions of the Act of 1985, the vehicle seized could not be released, are erroneous one and cannot be sustained. 8. Apart from this, in my considered opinion, there is no provision under the Act of 1985 excluding the operations of Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the Scheme of the Act of 1985. From this point of view also, the vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act of 1985 should be released on Supurdginama during the pendency of the trial to the rightful owner. 9. There is no dispute on the point that the present accused-petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the vehicle in question should be released to him on Supurdginama by the learned trial Judge and his application should have been allowed. The order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, NDPS Cases, Banswara deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, NDPS Cases, Banswara is quashed. It is directed that the truck No.RJ-09-G-2237 be delivered to the accused-petitioner on 'Supurdginama' on his producing the original registration certificate, provided he satisfies the following conditions:- 1. He shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the truck in Court as and when required by the Court. 2. He shall get the truck photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the investigating officer, to be kept on the file of the case. 3. The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. 4. The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the truck and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make it unidentifiable. Petition allowed.;