LAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed to challenge order dated 24.02.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which, an application moved by the petitioner for release of original Registration Certificate (RC) of Car bearing registration No. DL8CA -7818 has been dismissed. Briefly the facts of the case are that the present petitioner is registered owner of aforesaid vehicle and the same was borrowed by one Ravi Kumar, who was arrested in case FIR No. 26 dated 08.03.2010, under Sections 399 and 402 IPC registered at Police Station Baragudha. Said vehicle was taken into custody by the Police. When it came to the notice of the petitioner, he filed an application for releasing the vehicle on superdari and the same was released on superdari. Said case was decided by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.05.2011 and four accused persons namely, Jagseer Singh, Gurvinder Singh, Ravi Kumar and Vinod Kumar, were convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone. After decision of the said case, the petitioner moved an application for release of original RC of the Car, which was dismissed on 24.02.2012 and ordered confiscation of the Car. In pursuance of order dated 24.02.2012, the Car of the petitioner was taken into custody by the Police. Said order dated 24.02.2012 is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed without any application of judicial mind as no order of confiscation was passed at the time of delivering judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The Car in dispute was already released on superdari as it belonged to a registered owner. Only on application for release of RC, order of confiscation was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order of confiscation in the application is not maintainable as the same was to be passed at the time of passing of judgment of conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that neither the order of confiscation was passed by the trial Court at the time of delivery of the judgment nor any separate order was passed and no proceedings of confiscation were initiated at any point of time. The accused have already been released on undergoing his sentence. The application of mind, while passing the order, is also clear from the fact that even the custody period has also not been mentioned.

(3.) SECTION 452 of Cr. P.C. provides for disposal of case property on conclusion of trial which is reproduced as under: -