Rajkamal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2025:CGHC:3338

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 126 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rajkamal Singh S/o Pritam Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o Flat 405, Greenwood Premium Housing Complex Calcutta Main Road, Gopalpur East 24, Pargana, District- Calcutta, West Bengal.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

20/01/2025

¶14

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03/01/2025 passed by the Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in criminal case No.12/2024 whereby the order dated 05/12/2024 passed by the JMFC, Saraipali, C.G. in M.J.C. No. 348 of 2024 rejecting the application for supurdnama filed by the petitioner, has been affirmed.

¶15

Digitally signed byASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.01.23 13:23:20 +0530

¶16

2 / 7

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the proprietor of the business in the name of Kamal enterprise which deals in the trade of Areca Nuts and the present applicant is the power of attorney holder of the vehicle which is a goods carrier bearing registration no. NL01AD5571 and the owner of the Goods Carrier vehicle is Mukesh Sahani who has given the power of attorney to the present applicant with respect/regard to the aforesaid vehicle and the said vehicle has been seized by the police of police station Singhoda and the said Vehicle which is a goods carrier bearing registration no. NL01AD5571 which is involved in the alleged commission of offence in connection with Rojnamchasana no. 20/2024 has been seized from the driver of the applicant with the allegation that the said vehicle has been used for some ill-legal activity commission of offence. The petitioner being the power of attorney holder of the said vehicle and the deponent in the present application and the petitioner as well as the aforesaid vehicle is not involved in commission of any kind of offence. Where as the applicant is a business man and the applicant deals in trading of Areca Nuts and the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration no. NL01AD5571 has been used by the applicant for the transport of a consignment of Areca nuts weighing 17,920 kgs amounting to Rs 26,62,464/- which was being transported from Kamal enterprise 67/40, Strand Road, Jorabagan, Kolkata, West Bengal to Subh Trading Company Office no. B/8/06, Grama House, Plot No. 14C, sector- 19 Vashi, Thane, Maharashtra, 400706 and during transit the said vehicle has been seized by the police

¶18

3 / 7

¶19

of police station Singhoda distt,. Mahasamund (C.G.) without giving any

¶20

reason to the applicant or his driver.

¶21

On 06/11/2024 the police of Police Station Singhoda has intercepted the vehicle of the petitioner in connection with one Istagasa no. 20/2024 and suspected that the aforesaid vehicle has been used for commission any offence. After the seizure when the police has found that inside the aforesaid vehicle container, areca nuts have been found. Then, he sought some information from the GST department but the department of GST has not made any kind of objection. The petitioner immediately after the aforesaid seizure, moved an application U/s 503 of BNSS for release of the vehicle container along with the ARECA nuts before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Saraipali District Mahasamubnd (C.G.) and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 22.11.2024 has directed to release the vehicle and container on Supurtnama.

¶22

The petitioner who also wants to get his consignment of Areca Nuts released which has been kept inside of the container of the vehicle and if the aforesaid article Areca Nuts has been kept outside of the container then the same is subject to speedy and natural decay. So, another application for release of his vehicle container and areca nuts has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and on dated 05.12.2024 dismissed the application of supurdnama for release of the aforesaid Areca Nuts.

¶23

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 05.12.202, in view of the fact that the Areca nuts which has been seized according to the police is sub-standard and not human consumable and they are

¶24

4 / 7

¶25

going to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Food Safety and Statdards Act 2006 and as such application for grant of seized Areca Nuts on Supurdnama has been dismissed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Saraipali district Mahasamund (C.G.). Against the said order, the petitioner also preferred a revision which too has been dismissed. Hence this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police officer already recorded the statement of the petitioner in which he has categorically stated that the said consignment of Areca nuts is not being used for human consumption and it was being transported for making leather to the leather industries, pooja material, for making of Agarbatti. He would next contend that till date the respondent has not registered any crime regarding the aforesaid seizure of the vehicle container and the areca nuts which they seized. He would next contend that the seized goods have been found not human consumable and the same cannot be kept at the police station for an indefinite period. He would next contend that the petitioner is not at all involved in any kind of crime and the police has wrongly held the vehicle along with the consignment of the petitioner. He would lastly contend that the impugned orders may be set aside and the container vehicle of the petitioner may be released on Supurdnama.

¶27

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶29

5 / 7

¶30

The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

¶31

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

¶32

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining

¶33

unused or by its misappropriation;

¶34

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

¶35

3. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, 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 property in detail;

¶36

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.

¶37

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station 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.

¶38

6 / 7

¶39

This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

¶40

Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of

¶41

Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & 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.

¶42

In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicles are allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicles can be released to the petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the owner of the vehicles. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case it is found that the vehicles are left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the vehicles are still left for irreparable damages.

¶43

The vehicle and the goods i.e. Areca Nuts have been seized under the proceedings of Section 106 of the BNSS, however, till date no proceedings have been drawn by any department and no offence has been registered against the petitioner. Further the lab testing of the seized material has already been done and the petitioner has categorically made a submission that the said item was not for the purpose of human consumption. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai

¶44

7 / 7

¶45

(supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 03/01/2025 passed by the Court below is hereby set-aside. It is directed that the Vehicle/Goods Carrier bearing registration No. NL 01 AD 5571 and the seized item i.e. Areca Nuts are having a cost of 10.00 Lakhs and 26.00 Lakhs, respectively, therefore, the vehicle and the article be released in favour of the petitioner, as interim custody on the following condition s:-

¶46

(i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made.

¶47

(ii) Photographs of the vehicles should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicles would be produced as and when required.

¶48

(iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.40,00,000/(Fourty Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle and the seized item from the petitioner.

¶49

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned authority within a period of one month and shall give sample of the seized article.

¶50

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petitioner is allowed.

¶51

SD/-

¶52

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶53

ashu

Rajkamal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkamal Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Singh (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan @ Palendra Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Munda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shriram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh