Allowed

Mohd. Yunus Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2020CRR/613/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court, treating this as a revision against an order denying interim custody of a seized auto rikshaw under Section 457 Cr.P.C., held that the procedure for confiscation under Section 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act begins only after the conclusion of the trial. Since the applicant is the owner but not an accused, the court allowed the revision, ordered the impugned order set aside, an

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; vehicle released to applicant on furnishing of bond according to trial court's valuation.

Mohd. Yunus Alam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.R. No. 613 of 2020

¶5

Mohd. Yunus Alam S/o Mohd. Rozid Aged About 52 Years R/o Mominpura Ward No.40, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant – Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant – Mr. Ghansyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

¶12

09-12-2020

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This revision is directed against the order dated 04.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Balrampur, Place- Ramanujganj, C.G., dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. praying for interim custody of the property under seizure in the case concerned.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is registered owner of the auto Rikshaw bearing registration No. CG15-DA-9195, which has been seized by the police in Crime No.24/2020, in connection with commission of offence under Section 21(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is not an accused in that case and also if the prosecution is to be believed, the applicant had no

¶16

-2-

¶17

knowledge of the said transportation and neither such transportation was done in his connivance, therefore, he is entitled for the interim custody of the seized vehicle. The impugned order has been passed erroneously, therefore, interference is prayed for by this revision petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State/Non-applicant opposes and submits that the applicant is the father of the accused Irshaad Alam from whose possession the narcotic substance was seized while the same was being transported in auto rikshaw, therefore, the applicant cannot claim that he did not have knowledge and the transportation was not done in his connivance. Apart from that the seized auto rikshaw is liable to be confiscated. Therefore, the learned Special Court has not committed any error. Hence, this revision petition may be dismissed.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents.

¶20

Considered on the submissions and the facts of the present case and also the seizure of the auto rikshaw made in the criminal case mentioned hereinabove, it is clear that the applicant is the registered owner of the said vehicle, further, he is not an accused in this case. The procedure for confiscation of seized article under N.D.P.S. Act can be initiated under Section 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act only at the stage of conclusion of trial and not before that. Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of this view that the applicant had entitlement for interim custody of the vehicle under seizure, hence, I find that the learned Special Court has committed error, hence, this revision petition is allowed. As it is informed that the said vehicle is hypothetic

¶21

-3-

¶22

to the finance company, therefore, specific condition shall be clear that the applicant shall not transfer the said vehicle during the pendency of the case. The impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that on furnishing of bonds according to the valuation assessed by the trial Court the vehicle shall be released on interim custody in favour of the applicant.

¶23

Sd/(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶24

Monika

Mohd. Yunus Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yunus Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dewa Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dev Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daduram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh