Dismissed

Kamal Kishore Meena S/O Shri Chhitarmal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2021CRLMA/25/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking modification of an order releasing a seized truck, holding that confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act were yet to commence and that Section 362 Cr.P.C. barred review of the final order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as misconceived; interim order vacated and pending applications disposed of.

Kamal Kishore Meena S/O Shri Chhitarmal Meena Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 25/2021

¶3

Kamal Kishore Meena S/o Shri Chhitarmal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Phirwasi, Police Station Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Ladnun, Distt. Nagaur Raj. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. Rj-37Ga-1895)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Upman

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

15/02/2021

¶11

The applicant has moved this misc. application seeking modification/recalling of order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Court directing for release of the vehicle seized as a cash property. 2. Notices were issued in this case, whereafter the counsel for the non-applicant has put in appearance and pointed out that in spite of order passed by the court, vehicle has not been released. It is also informed that the confiscation proceedings have not been concluded nor they have been initiated as the same are to be initiated in terms of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985 which provides as under: -

¶12

“63. Procedure in making confiscations. — (1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any

¶13

(2 of 5)

¶14

[CRLMA-25/2021]

¶15

article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.

¶16

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly:

¶17

Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim:

¶18

Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance [controlled substance], the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Narcotics Department submits that a circular has been issued for disposal of narcotics drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances of and conveyances on 16^th January, 2015 and therefore, in terms of circular, the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.652/2012 :

¶20

Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal directed for disposal of NDPS Substances before the Drug Disposal Committee as this Court finds that the directions issued by the Supreme Court are as under:-

¶21

(1) No sooner the seizure of any narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

[CRLMA-25/2021]

¶24

Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer incharge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under sub-section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and sampling’. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.

¶25

(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No.1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.

¶26

(3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts.

¶27

The aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court are only with regard to the drugs which have been seized. So far as vehicle is concerned, the same is required to be confiscated in terms of provisions laid down under the NDPS Act and a circular cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act.

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[CRLMA-25/2021]

¶30

Admittedly, the confiscation proceedings have not been initiated with regard to the vehicle. In the garb of the same, the applicant has no case for recalling of the order. No typographical or any other apparent mistake has been committed in the order.

¶31

In view of the bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others (2011) 14 SCC 770, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶32

“44. There is no power of review with the criminal court after Judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362, Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment.

¶33

Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362, Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the Judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. 46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of Court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362,

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

[CRLMA-25/2021]

¶36

Cr. P.C. would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault.”

¶37

The order passed in criminal case is not liable to be recalled. The application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order also stands vacated.

¶38

8 . All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.

¶39

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶40

SAURABH YADAV /670/58

Kamal Kishore Meena S/O Shri Chhitarmal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishore Meena S/O Shri Chhitarmal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

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

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Rekha Ram Regar S/O Shri Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajaram Suryawansi Son of Shri Pyare Lal Suryawansi Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Chandel S/O Shri Doulat Ram Chandel Vs Vice Chancellor

Samiksha Arya D/O Vedvrata Arya Vs the State of Rajasthan