P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Failure of petitioner before Court below, in his pursuit for release of vehicle in connection with FIR No.75/2013 of Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur, has prompted him to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to FIR aforesaid, after investigation, police arrested Hajari Ram and Sunil and submitted charge sheet under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act before Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The trial Court proceeded with trial and framed charges against accused persons for offence under Section 8/21 read with Section 25 and Section 8/21 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, both the accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court by its judgment dated 3rd of April, 2017. As the vehicle Scorpio YIX, white in colour with Engine No.MXD4D23257 and Chassis No.D2D47105, owned by the petitioner, is seized by the police for allegedly carrying contraband, after conclusion of the trial, petitioner made endeavour for release of the vehicle before learned trial Court but the learned trial Court by its order dated 26th of April 2017 has rejected his prayer precisely by citing the reason that further investigation is pending against one accused Yusuf alias Lal under Section 178(3). It is also observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that while passing the verdict of acquittal, the Court has not passed any order for release of the vehicle therefore, it is not desirable to review the judgment rendered earlier for acceding to the prayer of petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of acquittal of two accused persons, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised discretion in his favour for release of vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even if further investigation is pending against one of the accused persons under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. there was no impediment in release of the vehicle on Supardaginama in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, has urged that impugned order merits annulment and the vehicle in question be ordered to be released. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2000/2015 (Madavdas v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 30.07.2015) and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.315/2013 (Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 05.07.2013) .;