Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Vishnu Camikals Ltd. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2016
CRR-519-2016
(M/S VISHNU CAMIKALS LTD. VISHAKHAPATNAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
16-03-2016
Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhayraj Singh Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage after admission.
2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 r.w 401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by an order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Satna under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') in MJC No. 08/2016, whereby the applicant's supurdginama application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
3. The skeleton facts which are to be stated for just and proper adjudication of this revision are that the applicant-company manufactures and sells chemical product Sodium Bi Chromate. Its unit is located at Visakhapatnam. The applicant had sold and dispatched 15 metric tons Sodium Bi Chromate (for short 'the consignment') to M/s Gee International, Shop No.20, Green Avenue, Nanaksar, Barnala (Punjab) (for short 'the consignee'). The value of the consignment was rupees Rs.13,77,000/-. The consignment being kept in 300 bags was sent to the consignee through Bilty No.3368 and by a truck bearing registration No.BP-05-P-9005 (for short 'the truck') on 21.12.2015. The truck was arranged by the transporter named Ritwal Road Lines. When the truck was in transit, Manish Tripathi, the SHO Police Station Maihar, district Satna got a tip-off that a huge quantity of Ganja is being transported in the truck keeping beneath the consignment. On 25.12.2015, he intercepted the truck with the help of police force. Thereafter, he searched the truck in the presence of panch-witnesses and in the course of search, he found that 820 kgs. Ganja is kept in 34 gunny bags beneath the consignment. Thereupon, he registered a case at Crime No.924/2015 against the truck driver Balvinder Singh and his brother Baljeet Singh, who was the occupant of the truck, for the offences punishable under Section 8 r.w 20 of the Act.
4. The applicant's special power of attorney holder Vijay Kumar Sharma filed an application in the said court for releasing the consignment on supurdginama.
5. The learned Special Judge has rejected the supurdginama application vide the impugned order holding that the consignment is liable to be confiscated under Section 61 of the Act.
6. Hence, this revision.
7. Ld counsel for the applicant submits that as per the explanation given under Section 61 of the Act, the consignment is not liable to be confiscated. He further submits that the applicant is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and enjoys good reputation. He further submits that the applicant is not responsible if the truck driver and the occupant have been transporting illegally Ganja concealing beneath the consignment. He further submits that the consignment is kept on the open premises of the concerned Police Station, therefore, after some time it would loose efficaciousness. He further submits that even if the consignment is liable to be confiscated despite that it may be given on supurdginama as per law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others (1999 (5) SCC 670). He further submits that the learned Special Judge has not taken into consideration the aforementioned facts while deciding the supurdginama application. He lastly submits that the applicant is ready to obey all the terms and conditions to be imposed by the court while releasing the consignment on supurdginama.
8. Ld Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the impugned order and material on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge has grossly erred in rejecting the supurdginama application. Therefore, this revision is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The learned Special Judge is directed to release the consignment on supurdginama to the applicant's special power of attorney holder Vijay Kumar Sharma on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) That, Vijay Kumar Sharma shall furnish a supurdginama on behalf of himself and on behalf of the applicant-company in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs only) with an undertaking to produce the consignment or its value in terms of money, if the court passes an order of confiscation of the consignment at the time of final judgment in the case.
(ii) That, supurdginama shall carry the photograph of Vijay Kumar Sharma.
(iii) That, Vijay Kumar Sharma will furnish his full residential address and contact numbers with documentary proof.
(iv) The original special power of attorney executed by the applicant in favour of Vijay Kumar Sharma be filed in the said court.
10. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court for information and compliance.
11. Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE