G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) Public Prosecutor states that the case diary has not been received. It is relevant to state that many opportunities have been given to the Public Prosecutor to produce the case diary. On 8.7.1999, it was specifically directed that if the Public Prosecutor failed to produce the case diary, the matter shall be heard finally.
(2.) Mr. Garg, contends that in the house search of Gurbachan Singh, DRA, on 10.10.1998 the motor-cycle belonging to the petitioner was seized which was lying in the Courtyard. He states that the petitioner-Brij Lal had gone there to meet Gurbachan Singh and at that time the raid was conducted. Now, Brij Lal has expired and his LRs have requested that the motor-cycle be returned to them.
(3.) The trial Court has rejected the application of Brij Lal on the ground that there was a possibility that the motor-cycle was benami in the name of Brij Lal. Since no record has been made available to this Court and it is not disputed that the motor cycle stands in the name of Brij Lal in the registration department, it is just and proper to give the interim custody of the motor-cycle to the LRs of Brij Lal.;