BIRENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-266
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 26,2015

Birender Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Jaspal Singh, J. - (1.)CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to order dated December 11, 2014 passed by ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby an application preferred by petitioner (registered owner) for releasing his vehicle Tata Canter bearing No. HR -47 -6641, on sapurdari has been declined, which is alleged to have been involved in case arising out of FIR No. 638, dated 07.12.2013, under Sections 15 and 27 -A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act').
(2.)IN response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, learned State counsel, Mr. Vikas Chopra, DAG, Haryana appeared and represented State of Haryana.
(3.)WHILE assailing the impugned order dated December 11, 2014, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that during police investigation, co -accused is alleged to have suffered a disclosure statements on March 20, 2014 (Annexures P -1 and P -2) disclosing that vehicle was borrowed by him from the petitioner by his former driver namely Sunil Kumar for bringing stones for the construction of his house. In fact, petitioner was wrongly informed by accused that his vehicle has been stolen away, regarding which he got registered an FIR at Police Station Neem Ka Thana (Rajasthan). At the time, he was not aware of its involvement in any case. However, subsequently, said FIR regarding theft of vehicle was got cancelled.
Admittedly, petitioner is the registered owner of Tata Canter in question, which is lying in the premises of police station, after it was impounded. Not only the value of vehicle is decreasing day -by -day yet petitioner is also suffering pecuniary loss for no fault on his part. The mere fact that recovery of poppy husk has been effected from Tata canter at the instance of his co -accused, petitioner cannot be declined of sapurdari and use of the vehicle during pendency of trial. The impugned order declining the vehicle on sapurdari is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside whereby application deserve to be accepted for releasing the vehicle on sapurdari.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.