State Of Punjab vs. Mandeep Singh

Held

The High Court modified the impugned order, allowing the release of seized goods on 'Supardari' to the respondent, Mandeep Singh, subject to strict conditions. The Court found that the trial court's observation regarding the respondent claiming ownership was incorrect, as the application only stated possession as a transporter. The Court acknowledged the semi-perishable nature of some goods and the absence of any claimant for ownership. The conditions imposed include: the respondent furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) equal to 50% of the MRP of the goods, after verification by the State; the trial court making a tentative assessment of the goods' value; the FDR remaining intact in a nationalized bank until the case disposal, with provisions for forfeiture or return based on the outcome; an inventory and photographs of the articles; and the respondent furnishing an undertaking and a statement not disputing the recovery. The Court noted that while the trial court's order was accepted, it required modification with stringent conditions to safeguard the State's interest.

Facts

The State of Punjab filed a petition challenging an order dated January 5, 2023, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which accepted an application for the release of seized goods on 'Supardari'. The goods were seized following an FIR lodged on September 23, 2022, alleging evasion of tax by Mandeep Singh and others, who operated Delhi Malwa Transport Company. The FIR was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC sections related to cheating and criminal conspiracy. During a check, three vehicles carrying various articles without bills were intercepted. The respondent, Mandeep Singh, sought the release of these goods, claiming possession as a transporter, not the owner. The trial court accepted his application, noting that the goods were of a semi-perishable nature and no owner had come forward.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, erred in accepting the application for the release of seized goods on 'Supardari' filed by the respondent, Mandeep Singh, who claimed possession as a transporter, when the goods were seized in connection with an FIR for alleged tax evasion and other offenses? Petitioner's argument: The State of Punjab argued that the trial court's order was erroneous. The State contended that the respondent had not clearly established his locus standi as a transporter and that the goods were seized in relation to serious allegations of tax evasion and corruption. The State likely implied that the release of goods without proper verification of ownership or tax compliance would prejudice the investigation and potential recovery of taxes. Respondent's argument: The respondent, Mandeep Singh, clarified his position as a transporter in possession of the goods. He argued that the goods were of a semi-perishable nature and should be released to prevent their value from diminishing. He also highlighted that no owner had come forward to claim the goods, making his application for release on 'Supardari' reasonable. The respondent's counsel stated he was willing to make a specific statement to this effect.