Remanded

Chandeshwar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 May 2016CR. MISC./49552/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Judge to consider an application for the release of a seized truck under Section 451 CrPC. The court held that Section 451 empowers the court to order appropriate custody for seized property, distinguishing it from retention at police stations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to consider the application afresh.

Chandeshwar Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49552 of 2015

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2015 Thana -BOCHHA District- MUZAFFARPUR =========================================================== 1. Chandeshwar Mahto S/o Nandan Mahto @ Nandeo Mahto R/o Village - Lalpura, P.S. -Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Reena Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Shruti Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-05-2016

¶5

By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „CrPC‟), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9^th September, 2015 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Bochaha P.S.Case No. 22 of 2015 registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, whereby he has rejected the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner for release of the truck bearing Registration No. JH 09C-6077.

¶6

On perusal of the impugned order dated 9^th September, 2015, I find that the trial court has rejected the application only on the ground that certain quantity of Ganja was seized from the truck in

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49552 of 2015 dt.11-05-2016

¶8

2/4

¶9

question.

¶10

In my view, the ground taken by the court below for rejecting the application preferred under Section 451 of the CrPC is erroneous in nature. Under Section 451 of the CrPC, the court is empowered to order for custody and disposal of property seized in connection with a criminal case. It reads as under :-

¶11

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

¶12

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,

¶13

“property” includes—

¶14

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.

¶15

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”

¶16

A bare reading of Section 451 of the CrPC makes it

¶17

evident that it clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to the property, such as,

¶18

(i) for the proper custody pending conclusion of enquiry or trial;

¶19

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49552 of 2015 dt.11-05-2016

¶20

3/4

¶21

(ii) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to order to be sold or otherwise disposed of after recording such evidence as he thinks necessary.

¶22

Taking into consideration the provisions prescribed under Section 451 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai [(2002) 10 SCC 290] observed in paragraph 17 as

¶23

under :-

¶24

“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations 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. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

¶25

A similar issue had arisen before this Court in Cr.Misc.

¶26

No. 28193 of 2015 which has been disposed of by a reasoned order dated 21^st April, 2016 after taking into consideration the relevant statutory provisions and the decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of a vehicle seized in connection with a case instituted under the NDPS Act.

¶27

In view of the ratio laid down in Cr.Misc. No. 28193 of 2015, the impugned order dated 9^th September, 2015 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection

¶28

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49552 of 2015 dt.11-05-2016

¶29

4/4

¶30

with Bochaha P.S.Case No. 22 of 2015 cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. He is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after going through the order of this Court passed in Cr.Misc. No.28193 of 2015.

¶31

It is expected that the court below shall dispose of the matter after hearing the parties expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application is disposed of.

¶33

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶34

Pradeep/-

¶35

U T

Chandeshwar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandeshwar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

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

Nuzhat Bano Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandeshwar Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kailash Ram Vs The State Of Bihar Through D.m. Sheikhpura and Ors.

Satya Narayan Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Nand Kishore Verma Vs The State Of Bihar, Through Vigilance

Birendra Kumar @ Biru Painter Vs The State Of Bihar