JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, vide which the application of the appellant for release of Swift Maruti Car No.PB-10-BF-0919 on sapurdari, which was impounded in case FIR No.135 dated 26.05.2014 registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, has been dismissed. Brief facts for disposal of the present case are that appellant is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. On 26.05.2014 when appellant was driving the aforesaid vehicle in the area of Police Station Garhdiwala, during search, from the left pocket of trouser of the appellant one glazed paper was seized from which 35 grams of intoxicating powder was recovered. As a result of it FIR was registered and vehicle in question was taken into custody and in case of conviction it is liable to be confiscated. The trial in the case is going on. Appellant moved application for releasing the said vehicle on sapurdari, which has been dismissed vide impugned order by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur. Hence, this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that appellant has been roped in a false case. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that alleged recovery was effected from the left pocket of trouser of the appellant, which was non-commercial. No search of the vehicle was conducted nor the vehicle was the subject matter of the case. Learned counsel submits that conclusion of trial will take a long time and in case car is not released, it will not only cause damage to its condition but the appellant will also face difficulty in his day-to-day functioning and police is mis-using the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is ready to give an undertaking that as and when the Court requires the aforesaid car, he will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 1 RCR(Cri) 380 and the judgments of this Court in Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 4 RCR(Cri) 719 and Kulwant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2008 1 RCR(Cri) 828(2).

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that car in question was being used as a conveyance by the appellant to carry narcotic substance along with him. Therefore, appellant is not entitled for sapurdari of the car in question. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.