Uttarakhand High Court
Pushpendra Singh @ Praveen ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 319 of 2022
Pushpendra Singh @ Praveen Chauhan ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Meena
Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant revision is preferred against the
order dated 31.07.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 16 of 2021, State v. Pushpendra Singh @
Praveen Chauhan, by the court of Special Judge, NDPS
Act, Additional Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun.
By it, the application filed by the revisionist for release of
his car bearing Registration No. UK-07DP-1762 ("the
vehicle") has been rejected.
2. The factual background is as follows. On
9.6.2021, the police intercepted a car being driven by the
applicant and recovered certain articles prohibited under
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985. The revisionist was driving the vehicle. He revealed
his name as Praveen Chauhan S/o Karan Singh, aged 39
years, R/o House No. 5c, MDDA Colony, near ISBT, P.S.
Patel Nagar, Dehradun.
3. The revisionist moved an application for release
of the vehicle, but the application has been rejected on
the ground that the name of the applicant is different in
different documents. Somewhere, he writes his name as
Pushpendra Singh @ Praveen Singh and in school
records, the father's name is also different. The court
below also observed that if the revisionist's name is
Pushpendra Singh, why did he reveal his name as
Praveen Chauhan, when the vehicle was taken into
custody. The court also made observation with regard to
the date of birth of the revisionist.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is the registered owner of the
vehicle. The vehicle was taken from his custody. He seeks
its custody during trial.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that there
are different names of the revisionist and the date of birth
and his father's name are also different in different
documents. Hence, the application was rejected.
7. The court in criminal trial, when give some
article in the custody of the person, from whom it was
taken, does not decide the title of the article. It is simply a
custody of the article.
8. Undisputedly, the vehicle was taken from the
custody of the revisionist, when he revealed his name as
Praveen Chauhan. He was driving the car. Para 10 of the
impugned order reveals that in one of the school
certificate, the name of the revisionist is recorded as
Pushpendra alias Praveen Singh. Reference has been
made to the Adhar Card, in which name of the revisionist
is recorded as Pushpendra Singh alias Praveen Chauhan
and the vehicle is registered in the name of Pushpendra
Singh S/o Karan Singh.
9. These discrepancies in the name and other
particulars do not disentitle the revisionist to get custody
of the vehicle. No purpose would be served, if the vehicle
is kept in the police station. It will definitely be damaged
without proper maintenance. It will also occupy the
space.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order is not in accordance with
law. Accordingly, it deserves to be set aside.
11. The revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 31.07.2021 is set aside.
12. Let the vehicle be given into the custody of the
revisionist, subject to the followings:-
(i) The revisionist shall not change the shape
of the vehicle.
(ii) He shall produce the vehicle before the
court, as and when required.
(iii) He shall not transfer the ownership of the
vehicle without prior permission of the
court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03.08.2022
Avneet/
