Jagannath Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:13179

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 712 of 2025

¶6

1 - Jagannath Rathore S/o Angad Rathore Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Gorsi P.S. And Tahsil Jaithari District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh Through Power Of Attorney Holder Keshani Yadav Aged About 23 Years Wife Of Ram Prasad Yadav R/o Ward No. 06 Taradand P.S. Tahsil And District – Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Gourela District - G.P.M . (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashok Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Topilal Bareth, PL

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

19/03/2025

¶15

This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is directed against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur by which the petitioner’s application under Section 503 of the BNSS for releasing his vehicle (Car) seized for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act'), has been dismissed.

¶16

2

¶17

Brief facts of the case is that the offending vehicle was seized by the police of police Station Gourella in Crime No. 298/2024 alleging that on 7.10.2024, the car bearing registration No. MP 65 ZB 3791 was seized fro the possession of the accused persons for the offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. It is alleged that the applciant is the owner of the said vehicle and he had filed application under Section 503 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for supurdnama of the vehicle which was rejected by the trial court.

¶18

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was being used by other accused persons without his knowledge and as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the Court's custody, which is likely to be damaged on exposure of sun and rain and therefore, it be handed over to the petitioner during pendency of the criminal case.

¶19

He further submits that the provisions contained in Section 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C would be applicable as none of the provisions of the NDPS Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the CrPC and therefore in a deserving case, the right to interim custody provided under Sections 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C cannot be denied and if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police station till the trial is concluded, it will go waste and it will be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 1 (2002) 10 SCC 283.

¶20

5 . On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent/State, would submit that in view of the provisions contained in Section 60 of

¶21

3

¶22

the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question is not liable to be released in favour of petitioner.

¶23

Heard counsel for the parties perused the material available on record.

¶24

Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of vehicle seized in commission of the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which states as under: –

¶25

“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.- (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation.

¶26

Since the provisions of the CrPC including Section 451/457 have been expressly made applicable by virtue of Section 36 C of the NDPS

¶27

4

¶28

Act to the proceedings before the Special Court (NDPS) and there is no express bar contained in the NDPS Act for grant of interim custody as contained in Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the M.P. Amendment Act, 1983, therefore, merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is seized for commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted, as jurisdiction of criminal court has to be construed strictly unless expressly excluded. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) has laid down parameters for considering the application for interim custody expeditiously and judiciously so that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation and court or the police would not be required to keep the vehicle in safe custody. It was observed as under:-

¶29

“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 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 vehicle in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of 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.”

¶30

5

¶31

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur is hereby set aside. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and it was being used in the commission of offence and the accused has used it for the commission of alleged offence, the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. The matter is remitted to the Special Judge (NDPS) to pass order on the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner within 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and in the matter of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and others. The Special Judge may impose certain reasonable conditions for the ultimate production of the vehicle in question during trial. And the vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

¶32

i) Before release of vehicle proper panchnama be prepared.

¶33

ii) Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial.

¶34

iii) Proper security i.e. supurdnama to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs) and like sum of surety be obtained before release of vehicle.

¶35