GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the Judge Special Court, Mansa whereby prayer made by him for release of Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-04-0097 taken into possession during the investigation of the case bearing No. 43 dated 30.4.2000 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been declined.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present case a few facts have to be stated. On 30.4.2000 Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-04- 0097 driven by Balbir Singh was intercepted by the Police. One other person was also found sitting in the said car. Search of the car led to the recovery of 3 bags each containing 30 Kgs. poppy straw. During the investigation of the case, the car in question was released to Gurdev Singh, petitioner-accused on furnishing the bond that he would produce the same as and when required by the Court. On 6.7.2001, the car was not produced in Court and for that reason statement of witness of the prosecution could not be recorded. Consequently, spurdari bond of the car was forfeited to the State and spurdari of the petitioner in respect of the car in question was cancelled. Subsequently, the petitioner produced the car in Court on 24.8.2001 but the same was ordered to be taken into possession. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application on 5.9.2001 to the Special Judge, Mansa with a prayer to release the car on spurdari to him. The petitioner had taken the plea that he had failed to produce the car on 6.7.2001 as the car had gone out of order. The Special Judge, Mansa came to the conclusion that the petitioner had intentionally not produced the car on 6.7.2001 and for that reason it would not be advisable to release the car again on spurdari to him. Notice was taken by him of the observations made in Narender Kaur v. Arun Sheoran, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 266, wherein taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case the interim custody of the Maruti car allowed by the petitioner in that case to be used for carrying contraband had been declined. It is this order which had been challenged in the present petition.

(3.) THE primary controversy raised in the present petition has to be determined in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act and Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The relevant provisions of Section 60(3) of the Act read as under :-