HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of Shri S.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the Petitioner was denied sporadic of his car which is case -property in a crime reported under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(2.) THE Petitioner, who claims himself to be the registered owner of the car DHB -5727, Premier Padmini by make, while driving the car, was found to be committing offence under Section 20 of the aforesaid Act. On arrest of the Petitioner, the car was taken over by the investigating agency and is now stately lying at Police Station, City Karnal. The Petitioner apprehends misuse thereof and deterioration if not used. The learned Judge rejected the prayer of the Petitioner twice and this petition is against the second order.

(3.) IT is true, as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the vehicle is liable to confiscation if the Petitioner is found guilty. The power of confiscation noticeably was there even under the Opium Act and has been retained under the new Act. But, merely that the vehicle is liable to confiscation is no ground to assume that it will be confiscated. So, the release of the property would be regulated in accordance with the well settled judicial ways and not because the law has become stringent in the matter of punishment. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him to release the car in favour of the Petitioner subject to his fulfilling the following conditions: -