JANKI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 457 Crimial P.C., for releasing of Mahendra Bolero, bearing registration No. RJ-06-UA-2409.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2010, the above mentioned vehicle was lying outside the house of the petitioner. In the night, at about 8:00 to 12:00 PM, the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. On 11.05.2010, the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Bhilwara Kotwali. On the said report, the police registered a FIR, FIR No.316/2010. However, on 31.08.2010, the officials of the Police Station, Raipur seized the said vehicle in regard to an offence relating to NDPS Act. It was alleged that 350 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the said vehicle. On the said recovery, a FIR, FIR No.233/2010, was registered at Police Station Raipur. The investigation in the said FIR is complete. Even after the investigation, the petitioner has not been impleaded as an accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application under Sec. 457 Crimial P.C. before the learned Judge for release the said vehicle on "supurdgi". However, vide order dated 22.10.2010, the said application was dismissed. 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 LJ 2883 to buttress his contention that even if the vehicle is 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. 451 Crimial P.C.