Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Chandra Pal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 965 of 2022
• Ram Chandra Pal S/o Late Netlal Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 21,
Vindhya Nagar, District Sungrouli, M.P. At Present Village Kogwar, P.S.
Raghunathnagar, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Out Post Balangi, District Balrampur
(C.G.) --- Petitioner
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Odgi,
District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Adv.
For State : Ms. M. Asha, PL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 02.02.2023 :
1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur in Criminal MJC No.43/2021 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle has been rejected.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 08.09.2021 he was carrying and transporting the psychotropic substance in his vehicle being Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing Registration No.MP/66-T/2008 therefore, Crime No.58/2021 has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Odgi for the offence punishable under Section 20 (C) of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") and his vehicle has been seized.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is registered owner of the Maruti Dzire VDI bearing Registration No. MP/66-T/2008 which has been seized by the police. He further submits that after seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner has moved an application for 2 interim custody of the said vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. and the said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur by the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that there is no purpose to retaining the vehicle in the police station as the vehicle is lying idle and thereby it is deteriorating everyday for want of proper care and maintenance by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Special Judge has rejected the application in an arbitrary manner contrary to the principles laid down in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat {(2002) 10 SCC 283}, therefore, the order impugned may be set aside and application for custody of the said vehicle may be allowed..
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), it has been held at paras-7, 17 & 21 as under:-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its 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 property 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.
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 3 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.
21. However these powers are to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."
7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be held to be sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set aside.
8. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court below is allowed and the concerned Court shall, while passing the necessary order within a period of 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, regarding interim custody of the vehicle, impose reasonable conditions for the ultimate production of the vehicle during trial. It is made clear that at the time of handing over of the vehicle on Supurdnama, the applicant shall also furnish covered Insurance Policy of the said vehicle.
9. Resultantly, the CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay