Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sajjansingh vs The State Of Mp. on 28 June, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38445 of 2021
Between:-
SAJJANSINGH S/O KALUSINGH SONDHIYA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE-BHERUKHEDI
P.S.DAG, DISTRICT JHALAWAD (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH SAXENA,ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MP. THROUGH P.S. BAROD
DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI CHETAN JAIN, PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the order dated 05.11.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, district Shajapur in case no.12/2018 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for Supurdagi of Motor Cycle bearing registration no. RJ-17-SS-6737.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.RJ-17-SS-6737 and that the motor cycle is lying in open during the rainy season and is subject to natural decay and Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2022.06.29 the same be given on Supurdgi to the petitioner on appropriate condition. 17:25:16 IST Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application by submitting 2 that the motor cycle which has been seized was used in the crime registered under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S.Act and there is possibility of confiscation of the motor cycle.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that 2 Kg 250 grams of Opium has been seized from the petitioner and he is stated to be the owner of that motor cycle. Offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S.Act has been registered against the petitioner and the motor cycle and the contraband have been seized.
Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C empowers the court to pass appropriate orders for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the scope of Sec.451 in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat with C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as-
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary;
(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.
6. It is submitted that despite wide powers, proper orders are not passed by the Courts. It is also pointed out that in the State of Gujarat there is Gujarat Police Manual for disposal and custody of such articles.
As per the Manual also, various circulars are issued for maintenance of Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2022.06.29 17:25:16 IST proper registers for keeping the muddamal articles in safe custody.
7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be 3 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 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."
It has further been observed in para 10 of the judgment that to avoid the loss or destruction of the seized property, the power u/S.451 of the Cr.P.C should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.
Sec.60 of the NDPS Act 1985 deals with the liability of illicit drug, substance, plant, article and conveyance to confiscation. Sub-section (3) of Sec.60 provides for confiscation of the animal or conveyance used in transporting the contraband substance. Similarly Sec.61 deals with confiscation of goods used for concealing illicit drug or substances. No provision has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents which bars release of the conveyance or other items seized along with the contraband substances pending Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH the trial.
Date: 2022.06.29 17:25:16 IST This Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of MP 4 vide order dated 27th August, 2019 in Cr.R.No.2971/2019 (2019) SCC Online MP 2315 has duly considered the Scheme of the Act and the notification issued u/S.52-A of the Act and has reached to the conclusion that there is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial court to release the vehicle in interim custody. While holding so the earlier judgments of this court in the case of Panduram Kadam Vs. State of MP 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351 has been relied upon. Interim custody of the vehicle invoking power u/S.451 of the Cr.P.C seized in connection with the NDPS Act has also been permitted by another order of this court dated 24th April, 2019 passed in M.Cr.C No.6245/2019 in the case of Liyakat Ali Vs. State of MP 2019 SCC Online MP 726. Same was the view taken in the case of Malu Khan and another Vs. State of MP 1999 (2) MPLJ 243.
Chhattisgarh High Court also has taken the same view in the order dated 26th June, 2015 in Cr.R No.421/2015 in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2015 SCC Online CHH 1132).
Having regard to the above factual and legal position and also considering the fact that the Motor Cycle standing in the police station is subject to natural decay and will loose its value in course of time and also taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the Motor Cycle and criminal case is still pending and trial may also take long time for decision, the motor cycle is standing at police station in a open place, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to Supurdgi of the Motor Cycle bearing registration no.RJ-17-SS-6737 subject to the following conditions:-
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.06.29
17:25:16 IST
1) The petitioner will furnish solvent surety/security of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
52) The petitioner will also furnish an undertaking before the trial Court that he will not change the nature or colour of the motor cycle nor he will transfer or alienate it pending the trial.
3) The petitioner will furnish an undertaking that he will produce the motor cycle in question as and when required during the trial.
4) The photographs of size 18"x12" of the motor cycle from all sides and also containing the Registration Number, Engine Number and Chassis Number will be taken at the expense of the petitioner in the presence of the authorized person from the Court and will be kept in the file of the case.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.06.29
17:25:16 IST