[2025:RJ-JP:44372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7077/2025 Shaitan Singh S/o Gyanchand Chaudhary, R/o Village Nimod Thana Digod District Kota (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dushyant Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kanwas, District Kota by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking supurdagi of the subject vehicle truck Eicher No.RJ-20-GC-4074 has been rejected not on merits, but on a technical count that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was not produced. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota and during pendency of the same, the fitness certificate was produced showing the validity of the same till 21.07.2026. In spite of the above, the revision petition has been rejected on the technical count that the same was not submitted before the trial Court and no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court was found. [2025:RJ-JP:44372] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7077/2025] 3. Counsel submits that once the fitness certificate has been received and the its validity till 21.07.2026 has been shown, there was no reason or occasion available with the Revisional Court to reject the revision petition and denied the supurdagi of the vehicle to the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that after rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner seeking supurdagi of the vehicle on 03.10.2025, a certificate of fitness was granted to the vehicle of the petitioner, which is valid till 21.07.2026. This certificate was produced on the record of the Revisional Court and the same was taken a note, but in spite of the above, the revision petition has been rejected not on merits but on a technical count that the fitness certificate was not produced before the trial Court, who rejected the application seeking supurdagi. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner has secured the fitness certificate of the vehicle, the Revisional Court should not have rejected the revision petition on this technical count. On this count alone, the order passed by both the Courts below stand quashed and set-aside. 8. The application seeking supurdagi of the vehicle stands allowed. The trial court is directed to release the vehicle seized as case property by imposing following conditions:- [2025:RJ-JP:44372] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7077/2025] a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification. b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property. c) That the petitioner shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle in question showing its number and colour etc. d) At the time of release, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle in question shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the petitioner shall be personally liable. e) That the petitioner shall execute a Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and shall also furnish two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /92