SHRIMANTRAO CHINTAMANI KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in whose son's name Ambassador Car No. CAH-4609 is registered and was reported missing has filed this revision application challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati dated 14-10-1992 allowing the State's application for getting custody of the said car. It is the case of the petitioner that the above car was purchased by him in the name of his son by name Chintamani Shrimantro Kulkarni in whose name the car is registered with the authorities. THEy were residing jointly. His son Chintamani had been missing from 6-5-1990. THE petitioner had filed Criminal case against one Krishnamurti for having abducted his son Chintamani. He had also filed a complaint with the Gulbarga Police Station bearing No.119/90. THE crime was registered at C. R. No.166/90 with Chowk Police Station, Gulbarga which is pending. It was his case that one Dattatraya S. Bandgar took that car for carrying out repairs at Hyderabad on 9-11-91 but neither the said Dattatraya nor the car returned thereafter. It appears that thereafter it was discovered that the said car was seized for crime registered under C. R. No.231/91 at Indapur Police Station under the provisions of the NDPS Act. THE Ganja weighing about 170 Kgs was being carried illegally in the said car. THE petitioner, therefore, applied for custody of the car before the Trial Magistrate. THE learned JMFC, Indapur, Dist. Pune by his order dated 27th December 1991 directed handing over the said car to the petitioner on executing bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the condition that he should not transfer the said car till the disposal of the trial.

(2.) THE said order was challenged in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Baramati, Dist. Pune by the State by filing Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 1992. After considering all the facts and the law on the point, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Judgment and order dated 14-10-1992 directed the return of the car to the Indapur Police Station as the same was liable to be seized under the provisions of Sections 60, 61 and 63 of the NDPS Act. It is this order which is impugned in this revision application by the father of the owner of the car. Ms. Ambekar appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the car has been handed over to the custody of the father of the registered owner pending the trial on bond on the condition not to transfer the same and the said car continues to be in the custody of the petitioner by virtue of the interim order of stay granted by this Court in this revision application against the impugned order.