Dillip Kumar Senapati Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal, whereby his application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing of TVS Jupitor 125 scooter bearing Registration No.OD-05-BF-3716 has been rejected.

¶17

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. (Spl.) N.D.P.S. Case No.19 of 2022. It is alleged that 5 kg. Ganja was found from the conscious possession of the Petitioner while transporting in the vehicle in subject. Learned Court below by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitendra

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Kumar Digal vs. State of Orissa has rejected his application for release of the scooter.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Basanta Kumar Behera vs. State of Orissa reported in (2013) 54 OCR-876 . The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-

¶21

<From the above provision, it is clear that a vehicle used in the commission of the offence is liable for confiscation, which means that on proof of commission of offence and that the vehicle was used in such commission, at the conclusion of trial, the vehicle in question shall be confiscated. The confiscation of a vehicle enures to the benefit of the State. If not confiscated, the property in question has to be returned or released in favour of the rightful owner entitled for possession or to the person from whom it was seized. In case the property is not released and the trial continues for long time, its value gets diminished due to damage caused by exposure to sun and rain and in that even whether it is confiscated or not confiscated, no body gains anything and, on the contrary, in the event of confiscation the State would stand to lose and in the event no confiscation the owner will be the loser. This is the reason for which in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujurat ; (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stipulated guidelines for prompt interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with the commission of an offence.=

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Emphasizing the said judgment, he submits that value of

¶24

the vehicle shall be diminished, if the same is not released.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed

¶26

by the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal in connection with C.T. (Spl.) N.D.P.S. Case No.19 of 2022 is set aside and the vehicle is directed to be released on the condition to be imposed by the learned Court below taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Basanta Kumar Behera (supra).

¶27

The CRLMC is disposed of.

¶28

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶29

Swarna

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 13:41:08

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Dillip Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Kumar Senapati v. State of Odisha

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

Dharanidhar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Baruna Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bimal Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Jagannath Barik Vs State of Odisha

Babu @ Sulekha Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Pradhan Vs Sarita Exss