Alekh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard on admission.

The appeal being arguable, is admitted for hearing.

Issue notice to the respondent.

Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

Since short issue is involved, with the consent of parties, the appeal is being heard and disposed off finally.

This appeal under Section 21(1) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed on behalf of the appellant calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 03.12.2022 by which the appellant's application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected finding no merit.

Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act) Bilaspur, has rejected the appellant's application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. without following the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act) is liable to be rejected and the custody of the vehicle may be granted to the appellant.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and supports the order passed by the learned Special Judge.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) have laid down the procedure for custody and disposal of the articles and vehicles kept in the police custody in pending trial. Their Lordships have observed 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:-

owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

court or the police would not be required to keep the vehicle in safe custody;

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

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.”

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

16.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned.

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 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 the applications for return of such vehicles.

18.In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

In that view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act), Bilaspur for deciding the appellant's application afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Suderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) expeditiously.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).