Chattisgarh High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 September, 2024
1
2024:CGHC:36848
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2443 of 2023
Dharmendra Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Manharan Nishad Aged About
33 Years R/o Ward Number 7, Sheetalapara, Tilda, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, on behalf of Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. T. Nande, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/09/2024
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 102/2022 by learned Additional Session Judge, (Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI Cases), Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 01.01.2022 passed in Case No. 1212/2021 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) by rejecting the application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner (owner of the 2 vehicle).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.01.2021, the officers Excise Circle Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.), have received a secret information from the informant with the averment that the driver of Wagon-R CG-04-MN-8015 is in possession of illicit liquor. Thereafter the officers stopped the vehicle and searched it and seized 90 bulk liters of English Liquor which was kept by the driver and the officers arrested the Driver of the car from whose possession the said liquor was seized, therefore upon checking, the car was also seized by the Police officials. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and he filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for obtaining the vehicle on Suprudnama. The trial Court has dismissed the said application mentioning the reasons that the proceedings for confiscation of vehicle has been started and proceeding is pending before Collector therefore under Section 47 A3(a) of CG Excise Act, it is not appropriate to grant supurdnama of seized vehicle. Against the order dated 01.01.2022, the petitioner filed revision petition before the court of session by challenging the order which relates to rejection of the application for suprudnama. The learned Session Court rejected the revision petition by relying Section 47 A3(a) of CG excise act confirmed the order of CJM. Hence this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application of petitioner seeking the vehicle in question on supurdnama as he is the registered owner of vehicle. He further submits that the seized Car is lying idle at Police 3 Station since 02.01.2021 and if the same is not allowed to be used for a longer time, it is likely to rot or rust and no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the vehicle idle with the police; rather if the Petitioner is permitted to use the seized vehicle it would be in running condition. Therefore, he prays for the release of the said seized car/vehicle on Supurdnama in favour of the Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC 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 proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its 4 production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail;
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 station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders 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."
7. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period.
8. In the instant case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming herself to be the owner of the vehicle. On perusal of the records it transpires that the petitioner has filed a copy of vehicle registration certificate and the petitioner is not an accused in this 5 criminal case. There is no other compelling reason warranting rejection of application for release of the seized vehicle under interim custody of the Petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that in many cases, it is found that vehicles are standing for long period even after confiscation order has been passed and despite 2-3 years, no substantive action has been taken and the vehicle is still standing in stationed condition.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra) and also considering the facts of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the seized vehicle in the police custody and it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle Wagon-R CG-04-MN-8015 on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner.
10.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Revisional Court and order dated 01.01.2022 passed by the CJM, Raipur are hereby set aside. The seized vehicle is directed to be released on Supurdnama in favour of the petitioner on the following conditions:-
(i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicle be made. 6
(ii) Photographs of the vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicle would be produced as and when required.
(iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 7,00,000/-
(Sevan lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:
2024.09.23 11:27:23 +0530