N. C. KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) ON a complaint lodged by one Shri Asgar AH, a case under sections 420, 467 and 468, I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner Allarakh in Police Station, Sojat City. During the investigation of the case, the police had taken into possession truck bearing registration no. RSN 2898. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that truck bearing no. RJZ 1871 belonging to Asgar Ali was given on hire to the petitioner but he changed its registration number to RSN 2898 by changing the engine number and chasis number of the truck. It was, however, found that the truck stated to have been given by Asgar Ali to the applicant was different from truck bearing no. RSN 2898 and that the said truck which was taken as case property could not be a truck which is stated to have been mis-appropriated by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged of the offence under sections 467 and 468. No case was said to have been made out under section 420 but taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner a charge under section 406 was framed against him about his having mis-appropriated truck no. RJZ 1871. The truck bearing no. RSN 2898 which was admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioners, was given on 'supardari' to him on his giving undertaking that he would produce in court as and when required. After the court held that the said truck was not the case property, the petitioner moved the learned trial court with a request that he be not directed to produce the truck in question in court and that his bond/supardginama be discharged. The learned trial court has accepted the prayer of the petitioner in regard to the non-production of the truck in court but had declined his prayer to discharge the 'supardginama. Consequently, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing this petition.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the truck in question was seized by the police during the investigation of the case as case property and that its possession was given to the petitioner so that he can keep its custody during the trial of the case. It is also not disputed that the court having found that the truck in question is hot the one which is said to have been given to the petitioner by Asgar Ali and which is said to have been mis-appropriated by the petitioner, there is no necessity of the truck being produced in court as the same cannot be said to be the case property. The learned P. P. has not been able to tell me as to why in such circumstances 'supardginama' should not be discharged and there is no valid ground mentioned in the impugned order for not discharging the supardginama. If the impugned order is not set aside, great injustice will be done to the petitioner who admittedly cannot be said to have committed any offence in relation to the truck in question. Consequently, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 2. 11. 87 and direct that the supardginama/bond executed by the petitioner shall be treated as having been discharged. The petition stands disposed of. .;