Smt Jagjit Kaur v. State of Haryana

Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikram Jain, Additional A.G.Haryana for the respondent State -.- Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

3. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which the application of the petitioner for the release of Car (Indica) bearing registration No. DL-4C-R8332 on superdari was dismissed. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a registered owner of the aforesaid Car. The trial Court has dismissed her application for release of the vehicle in question on superdari only on the ground that the same was effectively used in commission of heinous crime punishable under Section CRR No. 732 of 2010 (O&M) 2 302 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgements rendered by this Court in the cases of Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana reported as 2007(1)RCR (Criminal) 284 and Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 281 as also on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat reported as AIR 2003 (SC) 638 to contend that the impugned order is completely contrary to the provisions of Sections 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which envisage that the power conferred under this section should be exercised expeditiously and judicially for the disposal of the property. It is further contended that no useful purpose was served by keeping the vehicle in the police station. It is also contended that the petitioner was ready to given an undertaking that as and when the Court requires the aforesaid car, she will produce the same in the same condition before the concerned Court. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay , or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise CRR No. 732 of 2010 (O&M) 3 disposed of . Explanation. For the purposes of this section, “property” includes- (a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody. (b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. Thus, Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court with wide powers for handing over the custody of the property to the rightful owner pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's (supra) in para 7 held as under:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Should be exercised expeditiously and judicially. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation:

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in details; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. CRR No. 732 of 2010 (O&M) 4 In the matter of vehicle, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 17 of the aforesaid judgement held as under:- “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” In the present case, the ownership of the vehicle in question is not disputed. Although, the trial in the aforesaid case is still pending before the trial Court, it is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution evidence is complete and the vehicle in question is lying standing in the Police Station. No useful purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to stand in the police station as the same will result in causing damage to the vehicle. Moreover, one of the grounds taken by the Court below while declining the handing over the aforesaid vehicle to the petitioner on superdari, was that the material witnesses still remain to be examined. Admittedly, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution evidence is complete and PWs have been examined. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is set aside and the vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari in favour of the petitioner who is the registered owner of the same subject to her furnishing undertaking to the effect that as and when the trial CRR No. 732 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Court requires the aforesaid Car, she will produce the same in the same condition at her own cost before the concerned Court and also she will neither sell the vehicle in question nor will change its colour or condition etc. during the pendency of the trial. The trial Court may impose any other usual conditions as may deem fit and proper including furnishing of personal bond etc. while releasing the aforesaid vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner. Allowed in the aforesaid terms. September 06,2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge