HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 166/2025 Hamiduunisa Wife Of Late Barkat Ali, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chatara Khatik Ka Nala, Near Nalanda School, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Treasury Officer Tonk, District Tonk (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, by which the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the amount of Rs. 1,17910/- has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner faces trial for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act, and at the time of his arrest, a sum of Rs. 1,17910 was recovered at his instance and the same was deposited in the concerned treasury. Counsel submits that after completion of trial, husband of petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 8/29 of NDPS vide judgment dated 31.08.2010. Counsel submits that co-accused person Mohammad Khalid was found guilty for the offence under section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, and he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months simple (2 of 3) [CRLMP-166/2025] imprisonment with a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Counsel submits that husband of the petitioner has expired on 29.09.2019, and thereafter, an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for release of the aforesaid amount. Counsel submits that said the application filed by the petitioner has not been decided on its merit but the same has been rejected on a technical count that is unavailability of the record as the record has been summoned by this Court in the criminal appeal submitted by the co-accused-Mohammad Khalid, hence in absence of the record, the application has not been decided on its merits and the same was disposed of for want of record. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the application filed by the petitioner for release of the aforesaid amount has not been decided on its merits but the same has been rejected on a technical count of non-availability of the original record as the same is lying pending before this Court in the criminal appeal submitted by the co-accused. Certainly this cannot be a ground for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court could have requested for sending the record back for deciding the application filed by the petitioner but instead of doing so, the application has been rejected on a technical count of non- availability of the record. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge may send a letter to this Court for recalling of the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-166/2025] record for disposal of the said application filed by the petitioner on its merit. The learned Trial Judge is expected to decide the application filed by the petitioner, expeditiously as early as possible. 6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/67