Allowed

Snehalata Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Nov 2021CRLMC/999/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that in the absence of specific interim release provisions in the NDPS Act, Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. applies. It set aside the Sessions Judge's order refusing release of the petitioner's vehicle seized under the NDPS Act and directed its interim release after verification of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Sessions Judge directed to order interim release of vehicle after verifying ownership and imposing suitable conditions.

Snehalata Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 999 of 2021

¶3

Snehalata Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B.K.Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶10

ORDER_ 22.11.2021

¶11

Order No.

¶12

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner assails the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Crl. Misc. Case No.10 of 2020 arising out of Special G.R. Case No. 104/2020 in rejecting his application for release of his vehicle under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C..

¶15

The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a SWIFT DEZIRE DIESEL VDI Car bearing Registration No. OR-02-AG-1094, which was seized on 17.08.2020 by the police in connection with Baselisahi P.S. Case No. 213/2020 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 21(C)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act. After seizure, the vehicle is said to be kept in the Baselisahi Police Station premises being exposed to sun and rain. The petitioner filed a petition under

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Puri with prayer to release the vehicle in her favour. Learned Sessions Judge, however, taking note of the provisions under Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act held that there is no prima facie material on record that the petitioner had no knowledge of the conveyance being used for transporting the narcotic drug and that she he had taken precaution against such use is a matter to be decided during trial. It was further held that the vehicle was found carrying contraband articles and the petitioner had not furnished any materials to indicate that the vehicle was used for hire. Thus, taking into account the amount of contraband articles recovered and seized, which is coming under the purview of commercial quantity, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition vide order dated 10.02.2021, which is impugned in the present application.

¶19

Heard Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶20

It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty that the impugned order is patently illegal since there is no provision in the NDPS Act for initiation of confiscation proceeding simultaneously with the trial of the case as is available in other statutes like the Forest Act and the Excise Act etc. Therefore, reference to Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act by the learned Sessions Judge is entirely misconceived.

¶21

Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand has fairly submitted that the NDPS Act does

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

not have any provision for interim release of the vehicle, for which the provisions under the Cr.P.C. alone are to be considered.

¶25

The confiscation referred to in Section 60 is an exercise to be resorted to after trial of the case, whereby, the owner is called upon to prove that the vehicle carrying the contraband was so used without his knowledge or connivance or of his agent or the person in-charge of the vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable precaution against such use.

¶26

As has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision in the NDPS Act for interim release of the vehicle. The resultant effect of absence of such a provision is that the owner of the vehicle shall have to wait till conclusion of the trial to make an effort to take possession of his vehicle and till such time, the vehicle would be left at the mercy of the police or other authorities as the case may be, who had seized the vehicle. Such a situation would run directly contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the apex court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 that every effort should be made to prevent wear and tear of the vehicle and that under the normal circumstances, the vehicle ought to be released in favour of its owner albeit by imposing certain conditions. The above view has also been taken by this court in the case of Kishore Kumar Choudhury vs. State of Orissa reported in 2017

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

(Supp.-I) OLR, 1052. Thus, the position that emerges is that in the absence of any provision in the NDPS Act for interim release of the vehicle seized under other provisions of the said Act, the provisions under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to order interim release of the vehicle in favour of its rightful owner.

¶30

In such view of the matter, the reasoning adopted by learned Sessions Judge with reference to Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act is entirely misconceived and hence, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Moreover, the quantity of contraband alleged being carried in the vehicle in question, also cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for its interim release.

¶31

For the forgoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, Puri committed an error in not directing release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who claims to be its rightful owner. As such, the impugned order warrants interference by this court.

¶32

In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. It is directed that the learned Sessions Judge shall pass necessary orders for interim release of the seized vehicle after satisfying himself with regard to its ownership etc. and by imposing such conditions as he may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further directed that since the vehicle has been lying exposed to the elements since 17.08.2020, learned Sessions Judge, Puri shall do well to pass necessary order afresh as directed above,

Page 4 of 5

Page 4 of 5

A.K. Rana

within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

1ssue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶38

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Snehalata Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehalata Sahoo 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suchitra Bisoyi Vs State of Odisha

Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Orissa

Manorama Meher Vs State of Odisha

Raghab Kumar Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Prasad Panda Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)