Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs State Of M.P. on 6 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1646
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 CRR No.1754/2020
CRR No.1754/2020
(Dinesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated : 6.8.2020
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Kanishka Gupta, learned counsel for the State.
Heard through video conferencing.
This revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is
directed against the order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the
Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajgarh rejecting the petitioner's
application for Supurdgi of the vehicle under Section 451 of
the Cr.P.C.
The brief facts are that Bajaj Pulser motorcycle
No.MP42MN5718, Engine No. DHYRJB57432, Chassis
No.MD2A11CYOJRB34168 was seized in connection with
the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act in Crime
No.182/19 registered in Police Station Limachouhan, District
Rajgarh. The petitioner had filed the application for giving the
said motorcycle on Supurdgi on the ground that he is the
registered owner of the vehicle. The trial Court had rejected
the application for Supurdgi on the ground that the
motorcycle was used for transportation of the contraband
item and it is liable to be confiscated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the
time of seizure of the contraband item, the petitioner was
standing near the motorcycle and the seizure was made from
the bag and the motorcycle was not used for transporting the
contraband item. He further submits that the motorcycle is
standing in open and will decay and that there is no bar of
interim custody of the vehicle in the NDPS case.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2 CRR No.1754/2020
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and has supported the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on
perusal of the record, it is noticed that 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 proper
registers for keeping the muddamal articles in safe
custody.
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 properly in detail; and
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
3 CRR No.1754/2020
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 the trial.
This Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of MP 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 CRR No.1754/2020 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 aforesaid legal position and considering the fact that the motorcycle which has been seized from the petitioner is subject to decay in course of time, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to release of the motorcycle subject to the following condition:-
1. The petitioner will submit personal bond of a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for releasing the vehicle in question.
2. Before releasing the vehicle in interim custody to the applicant, the SHO of the concerned police station shall get photographs of the seized vehicle from all sides and also the photographs clearly showing Engine Number and Chassis Number. These photographs shall be kept in the file of the trial Court along with the record.
3. The petitioner will furnish an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle in question as and when required during the trial.
4. The petitioner will not alienate the vehicle or make use of the said vehicle for any unlawful purpose during the pendency of the case.
5. An undertaking shall also be given by the petitioner that the nature of the vehicle in question shall not be changed without the prior permission of the Court.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 CRR No.1754/2020 With the aforesaid directions, the revision petition is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 2020.08.06 19:09:37 +05'30'