Dismissed

Gobinda Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Nov 2019CRLREV/549/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought release of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case, arguing lack of knowledge. The single-judge bench, accepting the State’s submission that knowledge is prima facie presumed by the quantity of contraband, dismissed the revision as no infirmity was found in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Request for release of the seized vehicle and setting aside the impugned order dismissed.

Gobinda Kanhar Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

CRLREV NO. 549 OF 2019

¶2

18.11.2019

¶3

This revision has been directed against an order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Phulbani in Crl. Misc. Case No. 06 of 2019.

¶4

By the said order, the application under section 457 of the Cr.P.C. filed by this petitioner for release of the TATA ACE bearing registration No. OD-12-9898 seized in connection with the case arising out of Firingia P.S. Case No. 84 of 217 running for commission of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act has been rejected.

¶5

Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that this petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the case and for the commission of illegal act if any by his driver, he is now suffering for long detention of his vehicle at the police station. It is further submitted that no material suggestive of the fact that this petitioner had even any indirect knowledge about any prior involvement of his driver in such activity is there on record. He therefore urges for setting aside the order with a direction for release of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, keeping in view the quantity of contraband ganja seized from the vehicle, prima facie the knowledge of the driver of the vehicle stands presumed. It is thus submitted that at this stage it would not be permissible to conclude that the vehicle in question was

¶7

= 2 =

¶8

so used without the knowledge or connivance of the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the vehicle and that he had taken all the reasonable precautions against said user which he may only establish in the trial, when the court below would be called upon to pass the final order in the matter of confiscation of the vehicle.

¶9

Considering the submissions made and on going through the order impugned in this revision, further keeping in view the materials on record, the submissions of the learned counsel for the State being accepted, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction so as to entertain this revision.

¶10

It is, however, observed that the trial court while passing the order in the matter of confiscation of the vehicle would provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the vehicle in establishing his case, in thwarting the confiscation of the vehicle.

¶11

Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.

¶12

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. ……..

¶13

D. Dash, J.

¶14

Narayan

Gobinda Kanhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobinda Kanhar v. State of Odisha

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

Ranveer Tandon Vs State of Odisha

Rinkoo Singh Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Sahu @ Pradeep Sahu @ Pradip Sahu Vs State of Odisha

M.Yuvraj Vs State of Orissa

Ajit Dakua Vs State of Odisha

Suren Oram@Bara Vs State of Orissa