Gauhati High Court
Ditring Warjri vs The Union Of India on 18 November, 2020
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010123692020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./173/2020
DITRING WARJRI
S/O LT. KPHEN RYNJAH, R/O UMASAWMAT, LYNGIONG SHILLONG, EAST
KHASI HILLS, MEGHALAYA.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DEPTT. OF CUSTOMS, ANTI- SMUGGLING UNIT, CUSTOM
DIVISION, GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
18-11-2020.
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Customs.
The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. Case No.12/2020, arising in connection with the NDPS Case No.97/2019 (corresponding to Case No.01/CL/NARC/AS/GAU/2019-20, dated 04.06.2019), whereby the prayer for zimma of the seized vehicle of the petitioner bearing Regn. No.ML-05-H-6835 Page No.# 2/3 was rejected, has preferred the present revision under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the CrPC.
By referring to the documents annexed, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Regn. No.ML-05-H-6835 was seized in connection with the Case No.01/CL/NARC/AS/GAU/2019-20, for carrying ganja inside the vehicle. However the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused, whereas three other persons were forwarded to the Court to face the trial.
The petitioner herein, on the earlier occasion had approached the trial Court, praying for zimma of the said vehicle and the learned trial Court also allowed the prayer with a direction to the I.O., to release the vehicle after verification of the documents and after executing a bond of Rs.5 lacs, vide order dated 08.08.2019, in Misc. Case No.33/2019. But the petitioner did not approach the I.O., as directed. Subsequently the offence report was submitted on 26.11.2019 against three accused persons, named therein. Thereafter the petitioner again approached the learned trial Court, praying for zimma of the said vehicle and the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 20.03.2020, has rejected the prayer of zimma on the submission of the I.O. that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner did not appear before the I.O. along with the relevant documents of the vehicle to claim his ownership and as such the fresh petition is liable to be rejected.
The learned trial Court was also of the view that the same vehicle was liable to be confiscated as per provision of the NDPS Act.
Today the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that as the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid case, the seizure of the vehicle need not be warranted during the trial. In the offence report also, there is a mention that the present petitioner was not aware about loading of ganja in his vehicle and such an offence has been committed by the accused drivers, without his knowledge and intimation and as such he has not been made an accused in the present case. Moreover the confiscation proceeding is not initiated or contemplated by the I.O., as it reflects.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai V. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 that the matter of custody and disposal of seized property, pending trial can be dealt under Section 451 of the CrPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that the power under Section 451 of the CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously, which would serve various purposes, namely:
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its Page No.# 3/3 misappropriation.
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and
4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
Obviously the article seized is a valuable one and the same is lying unattended since the date of seizure i.e. from 04.06.2019 and extensive damage of the vehicle will be caused, if it remains unattended till conclusion of the trial, which is otherwise not required in the present case.
Having regard to the entirety o the matter and the submission made before this Court, the petition is allowed and the impugned order so passed by the learned trial Court on 20.03.2020, in Misc. Case No.12/2020 is hereby set aside with direction to the I.O. to release the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith, after due verification of the connected documents as to the ownership etc., on execution of a bond of Rs.5 lacs.
With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant