Union Of India vs Mushtaq Ahmed Bhat

Rajnesh Oswal, J

Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu directing release of vehicle No. JK-09A-8777 in favour of the respondent.

It is contended that on 05.11.2018 at about 0900 hours, a secret information was received by the Intelligence Officer of NCB, Jammu from a reliable source that a person, namely, Abdul Qayoom Wani S/o. Abdul Gani Wani R/o Kalaross, Tehsil and District, Kupwara was carrying a huge quantity of Narcotics Drugs i.e. Heroin in his truck bearing registration No. JK-09A-8777 from Kashmir Valley to Delhi. Pursuant to that information Naka was laid at Ban Toll Plaza, Jammu at about 1520 hours and the said truck reached at Ban Toll Plaza, Jammu at about 1815 hours and was stopped by the Intelligence Officer along with two other trucks. During search of the truck, 50.120 Kg of heroin was recovered from the truck bearing registration No. JK-09A-8777.

Pursuant to the application by the respondent for release of the vehicle in his favour, the petitioner filed its report in the said application but despite numerous opportunities, the petitioner did not choose to file objections. After hearing the parties, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 04.02.2019 released the vehicle in question in favour of the respondent herein.

Being aggrieved of the same, the present revision petition has been filed only on the ground that the trial court has committed illegality by releasing the vehicle as the investigation was still going on and the complicity of the respondent i.e. registered owner of the vehicle was being investigated for the commission of offence.

Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI appearing for the petitioner, submits that the trial court was not right in releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the respondent during investigation as the petitioner was investigating the complicity of the respondent in the commission of offence also.

Heard and considered.

Order passed by the trial court releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the respondent is an interlocutory order and the same is not a final order. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to demonstrate that during investigation the complicity of the respondent has been established. Even otherwise also the petitioner could have approached the trial court for modification of the order dated 04.02.2019 (supra) in the event of establishment of the complicity of the respondent in the commission of offence. Since the order impugned that has been passed by the trial court is an interlocutory order, as only vehicle has been released pending the trial of the main case and no final order has been passed, so the petitioner has every right to approach the trial court for modification in the event there is change of circumstances. This revision petition, as such, is held to be not maintainable and the same is dismissed.