Punjab-Haryana High Court
Badal vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2014
Badal ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mrs. Ritu Punj, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 20780 of 2014 This application has been filed for condonation of 31 days delay in filing the accompanying revision petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 31 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is condoned.
Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014
The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 13.3.2014 passed by Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Courts, Hoshiarpur in case FIR No. 149 dated 16.6.2013 registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Tanda District Hoshiarpur for release of motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-07-AK-8085 to the petitioner on sapurdari being its real owner.
POOJA SHARMA2014.09.29 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (2) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in aforesaid case registered under the NDPS Act. During pendency of the trial an application was moved for release of his motorcycle on sapurdari being real owner on the ground that the said motorcycle was taken into possession at the time of the recovery of the contraband and now it is not required by the police for any purpose. The local police also does not have any objection in releasing the motorcycle on sapurdari. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2014 on the ground that it can be again used for carrying any narcotics drugs, therefore, the same cannot be released to the petitioner on sapurdari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the motorcycle is lying in the police station for the last more than one year and no purpose would be served by keeping the same in police custody as its condition will be deteriorated. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court and he is ready to produce the same as and when required. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 380, in support of his contentions.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court.
Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order.
For decision of the controversy in hand, Section 451 Cr.P.C. is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending POOJA SHARMA 2014.09.29 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (3) trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and. if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "property"
includes
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
Section 451 Cr.P.C. 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.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) has laid down certain guidelines for release of vehicles, which are reproduced as under:-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its POOJA SHARMA 2014.09.29 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (4) 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/article 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.
This issue was also subject matter of challenge in the case of Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. Stateof Mysore and another 1977 (4) SCC 358, where, the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a truck in the police station and later it was found missing. The question was with regard to payment of those articles and following observations were made by Hon'ble the Apex Court:-
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the POOJA SHARMA 2014.09.29 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (5) owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."
Under the similar circumstances, the vehicle of the accused was ordered to be released by this Court in the case of Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (4) RCR (criminal) 719 by relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra) and Roop Chand and Company Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 401.
Similarly in Hardam Singh Vs. Vidya Sagar and another, 1974 Criminal Law Times 61, this Court considered the question regarding custody of vehicle pending criminal case and held that the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is prima facie owner of POOJA SHARMA 2014.09.29 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (6) the vehicle and is entitled to its custody. Apart from this, it was also held that the possession is not by itself a true criterion for releasing the vehicle during pendency of the criminal case. It is the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered with the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, is prima facie the owner of the same and is entitled to its custody unless any other person establishes his superior title of claim over it.
In the present case, the ownership of the vehicle is not disputed by the respondent-State. The impugned order has been passed without mentioning any justified reason and the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that the vehicle can be used for carrying contraband and the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle. Moreover, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police station as not only its condition will be deteriorated but the petitioner would also be aggrieved by not using it and as such the motorcycle will outlive its utility.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated 13.3.2014 passed by Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Courts, Hoshiarpur is set aside and the trial Court is directed to release the vehicle, in question, to the petitioner on sapurdari on furnishing sapurdarinama to its satisfaction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by imposing reasonable terms and conditions as it may deem fit.
September 23, 2014 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja JUDGE
POOJA SHARMA
2014.09.29 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Crl. Revn. No. 2099 of 2014 (O&M) (7)
POOJA SHARMA
2014.09.29 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document