RASID ABDUL SAYYED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.1.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 457 Crimial P.C., for releasing of the vehicle, Scorpio Car, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a Scorpio Car, bearing Registration No. MH-02-JP-2513, was recovered by the police authority, which was used for transporting poppy husk. In this regard, a F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 182/2010, was registered at Police Station, Basni District Jodhpur. As the petitioner is the power of attorney holder on behalf of the owner of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 457 Crimial P.C. However, the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Jodhpur vide order dated 22.1.2011 dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, JT 2002(10) SC 80 , Bharat Mehta Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, AIR 2008 SC 1970 and on the case of General Insurance Council & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2010 Cri.L.J. 2883 to buttress his contention that even if a vehicle were involved in a criminal offence, the petitioner is entitled to seek the custody of the vehicle. Secondly, the Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines for exercising of power under Sec. 451 Crimial P.C. in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). However, the said guidelines have been ignored by the learned Judge while dismissing the application under Sec. 457 Crimial P.C.