NARINDER KUMAR CHOPRAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the revisionist Narinder Kumar Chopra against the impugned order dated 9.1.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No. 2, Agra by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the release application moved by the applicant/revisionist for release of vehicle Tata Indica Car seized by the police of police station Sadar Bazar, Agra in case Creim No. 561 of 2008, State v. Sutikshan Sarna and Ors., under Section 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant and leaned A.G.A and perused the record.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of revisionist that the impugned order is erroneous on the facts of the case as well as in the eyes of law because the name of the revisionist is neither mentioned in the F.I.R nor any involvement of vehicle concerned in the trade of narcotics has been mentioned, nor the revisionist/applicant is charge sheeted. The revisionist is owner of the alleged vehicle bearing Registration No. CH04A/7379. Sutikshan Sarna was the driver of the car and is cousin brother of the revisionist and this fact has never come either in the F.IR or in the charge sheet that there was involvement of the revisionist or his vehicle in the trade of narcotics. Hence reasons given by the learned Additional Session Judge in the impugned order are contrary to the record. The revisionist is law abiding citizen and retired account officer food, civil supplies and consumer affair department, State of Punjab. If there is any criminal case is found by the police, that is against the driver of the revisionist, hence the car of the revisionist may be released thereby allowing this revision and setting aside the impugned order dated 9.1.2009.