Sanjay Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 671 of 2015 Sanjay Pandey S/o Gopal Prasad Pandey, aged about 86 years, R/o besides P.K. School, Gali No. 1, Urdhat Riwa, Tahsil Hujur, District Riwa (Madhya Pradesh) Through : the Power of Attorney Holder Namely Dhirendra Chaturvedi, S/o Ambika Prasad Chaturvedi, aged about 29 years R/o Village - Dhawari, Gali No. 1, Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar, District - Satana (M.P.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through : Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. U. K. S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/10/2016 1.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 126 of 2015 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the applicant seeking for releasing of the seized vehicle Toyota Innova, bearing Registration No. HR-26 BD-9374, on Supurdnama which is alleged to have been involved in the commission of an offence under the Provisions of NDPS Act.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said seized vehicle of which the applicant is the registered owner and all the required valid documents in respect of the said vehicle are in his name. It is said that the seized vehicle was found to be involved in carrying 100 Kg. Ganja on 13.01.2015. According to the counsel for the applicant, none of the

-2accused persons are relatives of the applicant and the vehicle was hired from the applicant through his driver and the applicant was not directly or indirectly connected with the offence. He further submits that the vehicle is in the custody of the Police authorities since 13.01.2015 i.e. for almost a period of one year nine months and that the trial has not started yet and there is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. Under this circumstance, if the vehicle is not released, it would get decayed and would further deteriorate by passage of time to the extent that it would become unusable after some time and therefore in the interest of justice the vehicle may be released to the applicant. He further undertakes to give any sort of conditions required till the finalization of the criminal case or for that matter any other proceedings initiated by the authorities. 3.

Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, wherein in paragraphs 7 and 17 the Supreme Court has categorically enumerated the guidelines for releasing of the vehicle seized by the police. 4.

Counsel for the State opposes the claim of the applicant submitting that it is a case where huge quantity of Ganja was found to be transported by the seized vehicle and therefore the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's application for release of the seized vehicle on Supurdnama does not warrant any interference by this Court as the reasons assigned for rejecting the application are just and proper. 5.

The Supreme Court in paragraphs 7 and 17 of Sunderbhai case (supra) has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

-3- "7.

In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles." XXX XXX XXX 17.

In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the polices for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

6.

Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujrat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period.

7.

In the instant case, the trial and the confiscation proceedings stands stayed as the record was called for by this Court and therefore no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions at the police station. On the contrary, if the vehicle is released to the applicant subject to certain conditions, he can use it so that the vehicle does not become junk after some time. 8.

For the foregoing reasons, it is directed that the seized vehicle belonging to the applicant i.e., Toyota Innova bearing Registration No.

-4HR-26 BD-9374, be released to the applicant upon his furnishing an appropriate bond and guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court below for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. In the bond he shall give an undertaking that he shall not change the ownership of the vehicle nor shall he change the colour of the vehicle neither shall he create a third party right or interest over the said vehicle. He shall also undertake that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the prosecution during the course of investigation, trial and even at the appellate stage. He shall further undertake to produce the vehicle to any competent authority under any other statutes as and when required. So far as surety is concerned, it shall be equal to the present day value of the vehicle seized, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. The undertaking and condition also would be to abide by the final order passed in the confiscation proceeding whenever the same is completed. 9.

With the aforesaid observations, the present Criminal Revision is allowed. The Registry is directed to send back the records forthwith to the concerned Court below.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Bhola Judge