SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. - (1.) BY this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2006 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 59/2006, whereby the application moved under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2005 SHO, Bigod seized a jeep bearing No. RJ-06-G-4594, which was containing poppy husk. At that time, neither anybody was found near the jeep, nor it was claimed by anyone. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against Mithulal under Section 8/15, 8/25 and against Keshav under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Petitioner Govind Singh moved an application before the learned trial Court through his Power of Attorney holder Omprakash Somani for the release of vehicle on furnishing a Supardginama. The trial Court after hearing both sides, found that it was not in dispute that the vehicle in question bearing No. RJ-06-G- 4594 was in the name of registered owner Shri Govind Singh. It also found that the vehicle was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Bhilwara and instalments were due against Govind Singh. The trial Court further found that the alleged vehicle was sold to one Shri Omprakash Somani, who gave it on hire to one of the accused Mitthu Lal on 1.10.2005 on the monthly hire charges of Rs. 12,000/-. Thereafter, this vehicle was found containing poppy husk and was seized by the police. The trial Court rejected the application mentioning that if the vehicle in question is given on Supardginama then what is the guarantee that it will not be used in such type of offences again though the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the vehicle be given on Supardgi after obtaining a bank guarantee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle was purchased after taking loan which is now in police custody will deteriorate lying in the police custody and no purpose would be served. It has also been submitted that if the vehicle is given on Supardginama then the petitioner would be able to earn his livelihood and would, be able to deposit the monthly instalment. The contention of the learned counsel further is that petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that it was used for transporting contraband poppy husk, therefore, the petitioner being registered owner, the vehicle is required to be released in the interest of justice on Supardginama to him. It is also submitted that the vehicle is lying open to sky and is exposed to heat which will result in damage and diminishing its value and in the event of its ultimate confiscation, it would cause a loss to the State as the vehicle would become useless by the time the trial is over. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a case reported in 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 380 : AIR 2003 SC 638 : 2003 Cr.L.R. (SC) 103, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1029/2005 (Gajendra Singh v. State, decided on 06.12.2005.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.;