Niaz Bat Khan vs The State
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle impounded in connection with an FIR registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the registered owner, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle pending trial, particularly when the vehicle was not listed as case property in the submitted challan. The Court held that the petitioner, being the bona fide owner with no rival claimants, was entitled to custody. It reasoned that since the vehicle was not required for evidence in the challan, detaining it at the police station would lead to unnecessary decay and deterioration. The Court allowed the petition, directing the prosecution to release the vehicle on superdari, subject to the condition that the petitioner produces the vehicle before the trial court whenever required.
- Is the registered owner of a vehicle entitled to its interim custody (superdari) if the vehicle is not listed as case property in the challan?
- Can a vehicle impounded in a narcotics case be released to its owner if it is not required for production in court?
- Does the indefinite detention of a vehicle at a police station justify its release to the owner pending trial?
- Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J.---,This criminal revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Vacations Judge/Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Gilgit; whereby , the learned trial court has dismissed application filed by the petitioner under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for custody of a vehicle which was impounded by the police in case FIR No.42/2019, registered under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 at Police Station Juglote Gilgit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is real owner of vehicle in question, therefore, he is entitled for custody of said vehicle and the learned trial court has committed illegality while dismissing application of petitioner filed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. The learne d counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the challan agains t the accused Musharraf Khan has been submitted in the trial court and the vehicle has not been made case property in, the challan, therefore, the said vehicle is not required for production in the Court.
3. Conversely , the learned Deputy Advoc ate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the vehicle in question has been used in a commission of offence registered under Section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for superdari of vehicle in question.
4. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of Registration Book of vehicle in question, it transpires that the petitioner is a bona fide owner of vehicle in question and no rival claimant has claimed ownership of vehicle in question. Challan against the accused namely Musharraf Khan has been submitted in Court and vehicle in question has not been shown as case property in column 4 of challan, therefore, the said vehicle is not required by the prosecut ion. The vehicle in question can not be detained in Police Station for an indefinite period as it would decay and deteriorate the colour and parts of vehicle.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. Consequently , prosecution is directed to hand over the vehicle in -question to the petitioner on superdari. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle in question in the trial court as and when required. File.