Allowed¶38

Kamlesh Kumar Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2025CRA/560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act s.60(3) confiscation of conveyance; effect of acquittal on confiscation; return of vehicle to registered owner who was not an accused; s.452 CrPC disposal of property; seizure 15.04.2020 of 1816 Tramadol Spasmo Proxyvon capsules (1 kg 204 g 984 mg); vehicle CG/12/AN/2026 registered to Kamlesh Kumar Kurre; Special Judge NDPS Korba, MJC (Criminal) 46/2023 order dated 27.02.2024 set aside; Chhattisgarh HC CRA 560 of 2024 allowed 07.11.2025; Arvind Kumar Verma J.; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:54404.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation order dated 27.02.2024 set aside; appellant entitled to return of vehicle CG/12/AN/2026, to be released forthwith. ¶38

Kamlesh Kumar Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Confiscation order dated 27.02.2024 set aside; appellant entitled to return of vehicle CG/12/AN/2026, to be released forthwith.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether confiscation of the appellant's vehicle under Section 60(3) NDPS Act can be sustained when the accused persons have been acquitted of the NDPS charges and the appellant-owner claims he lent the vehicle unknowingly and was not an accused. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Where the prosecution failed to conduct proper investigation under the NDPS Act and the seized goods were held not to be psychotropic substances, the charges under the NDPS Act stand diluted and the parties revert to their original position of innocence.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Once the court finds the prosecution failed to prove the seized goods were narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, Section 60(3) NDPS Act is not applicable, its very substratum having been taken away by the acquittal order.

¶36

Key takeaways

The confiscation order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.ratio¶37
The appellant, being owner of vehicle CG/12/AN/2026, is entitled to get back possession and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 560 of 2024 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decided 07.11.2025). The appellant, Kamlesh Kumar Kurre, registered owner (Annexure A-3) of motorcycle CG/12/AN/2026 and not an accused in special case NDPS Act No. 11/2020, appealed against the order dated 27.02.2024 of the Special Judge (NDPS), Korba in MJC (Criminal) Case No. 46/2023 confiscating the vehicle despite the acquittal on 23.12.2023 (Annexure A-2) of the accused, Narendra Kumar Bhariya alias Chhotu and Komal Rathor alias Chhotu, of charges under Section 22(c) NDPS Act, the trial court having found the investigation improper. Held: once the prosecution fails to conduct proper investigation and to prove that the seized goods (1816 capsules of Tramadol Spasmo Proxyvon, 1 kg 204 g 984 mg, seized 15.04.2020) were narcotic/psychotropic substances, the charges dilute, the parties revert to innocence, and Section 60(3) NDPS Act cannot sustain confiscation, its substratum being destroyed by the acquittal; Section 452 Cr.P.C. was referred to on disposal of property. Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside; vehicle ordered released forthwith to the owner. No precedents cited.

2025:CGHC:54404

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 560 of 2024

¶6

1 - Kamlesh Kumar Kurre S/o Balram Kurre, Aged About 35 Years R/o Indiranagar, Jamnipali, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District Korba (Cg)

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kotwali, District- Korba (Cg)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶13

07.11.2025

¶14

1. The present appeal is against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Korba District Korba in MJC (Criminal) Case No. 46/2023, whereby the vehicle alleged to be used in the o8ence has been ordered to be con9scated, even after the acquittal of the accused persons namely Narendra Kumar Bhariya alias Chhotu and Komal Rathor alias Chhotu from the charges under Section 22 C of NDPS Act.

¶15

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2020 when the vehicle bearing registration number CG/12/AN/2026 was intercepted and it was searched, total of 1816 capsule pyeevon spas plus capsule

¶16

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.11 11:24:16 +0530

¶17

¶18

weighing 1 kilogram 204 grams and 984 miligram Tramadol Spasmo Proxyvon was recovered, thereafter, after the investigation, charge-sheet was 9led under Section 22 (c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After the entire trial, the appellant Narendra Kumar Bhariya alias Chhotu and Komal Rathor alias Chhotu were acquitted of the charges by order dated 23.12.2023 (Annexure A-2). The Court in the said order had further directed for con9scation of the vehicle wherein the alleged Psychotropic Substances was transported.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not accused in the special case under NDPS Act No. 11/2020. Since the vehicle belongs to the appellant and the appellant was not having any knowledge of his vehicle being used in said crime and further the accused persons had borrowed his vehicle to travel to their village and just as help appellant herein gave his bike, therefore the con9scation of vehicle in the light of Section 60(3) NDPS Act cannot be done.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the acquittal order having been passed in favour of the accused persons and as per the prosecution, the vehicle was seized from the possession of the present appellant and since the conviction of the accused persons has not been a8ected, therefore, he is entitled to get back his vehicle as without any rhyme or reason the order for con9scation cannot be passed.

¶21

5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer.

¶22

6. Perused the order dated 23.12.2023. Reading of the order would

¶23

¶24

show that the appellant was not accused in the aforesaid case and the trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act and further ordered for con9scation of the vehicle despite the acquittal of the accused persons.

¶25

7. Section 60 sub-section (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 reads that any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be liable for con9scation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge of the owner. In the instant case, the seizure of the vehicle was made from the joint possession of the accused persons. The document which is 9led as Annexure A-3 shows that the said vehicle was registered in the name of Kamlesh Kumar Kurre i.e. the present appellant. The trial Court in the instant case further recorded the fact that the prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the goods so seized were Psychotropic Substances.

¶26

8. Section 452 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

¶27

“452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

¶28

(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks !t for the disposal, by destruction, con!scation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any

¶29

¶30

o&ence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any o&ence.

¶31

(2) An order may be made under subsection (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub- section (1) is modi!ed or set aside on appeal or revision.(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub- section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.

¶32

(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub- section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.

¶33

(5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an o&ence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.”

¶34

9. In the instant case, it appears that the vehicle was seized from the accused persons as per Annexure A-2, the vehicle prima facie appears to be in the name of the appellant. Once the prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act and the goods which were seized were not Psychotropic Substances, the entire charges under the NDPS Act automatically diluted and the parties are relegated back to their

¶35

¶36

original position of innocence. When the court has come to 9nding that the prosecution has failed to prove that goods which were seized were narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then provisions of Section 60 sub-section (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would not be applicable as the very sub stratum of applicability of Section 60 sub-section (3) has been taken away by the acquittal order.

¶37

10. Consequently, order of con9scation passed by the learned court below by its order dated 27.02.2024 is liable to be set aside. Appellant is owner of the vehicle CG/12/AN/2026 is entitled to get back possession of the vehicle and the vehicle of the appellant be released forthwith.

¶38

11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶41

Jyoti

Kamlesh Kumar Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramsunder Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niranjan Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitu Srivastava (Pet. in Person) Vs Bar Council of India

Sagar Agriculture and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prakhar Jindal

Dhaneshwer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh