Gurudarsan Singh vs State of Orissa

A.S. Naidu, J.—The petition filed by the Petitioners claiming to be the owner of the bus bearing registration number WB. 23-A0397 u/s 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of the said bus having been rejected by the Special Judge, Jaipur in G.R. Case No. 460 of 2002 by his order dated 6.3.2002, the said order is impugned in this Criminal Revision.

On 4th May, 2002 at 5 P.M., the staff of Korei Police Station detained the aforesaid bus and on search they detected four gunny bags containing 200 kgs. of poppy-straw in total were loaded on the roof of the said bus. The staff of the bus could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding ownership of the poppy-straw and the driver, connector and helper of the bus were arrested and forwarded to Court for alleged commission of offence u/s 15 of the Act. The offending bus along with its documents were seized by police and the said fact was also intimated to Court by police. The bus is now at the police station since 4.5.2002.

On 8.5.2002, the present Petitioner filed a petition before the Special Judge for release of the bus in his favour. According to the Petitioner, he had absolutely no knowledge nor the bags containing poppy-straw were carried with his connivance. He also took a specific plea that he had instructed the conductor, helper and driver of the bus not to carry any objectionable material in the vehicle or on the roof-top luggage carrier. It was also prayed that since the bus was lying at the police station being exposed to sun and rain, interim custody of the same might be given in favour of the Petitioner who undertook to produce the bus before the Court as and when necessary.

The trial Court relying upon the provisions of Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act arrived at the conclusion that the carrier of the contraband articles or psychotropic substances was liable to be confiscated and as about 200 kgs. of poppy-straw was transported by the offending vehicle, it was a fit a case where the bus should not be released pending the trial.

In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphatically submitted that the Petitioner is the real owner as would be evident from the document filed before the Court. The facts and circumstances reveal that he had no direct nexus with the transportation of the contraband article. It is also again reiterated that he had specifically instructed and directed the staff of the bus not to carry any objectionable article. It is further contended that if the bus would be allowed to lie at the police station being exposed to rain and sun, the same will get damaged. At the other hand, it is contended, if the offending bus is released is favour of the Petitioner, who is the owner, he will take proper will maintain the same and will also produce the same as and when required, subject to final decision of the proceeding. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the eases reported in Abhay Kumar Satapathy v. State of Orissa (2002) 22 OCR 362 and Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan 3 (1992) CCR 2575, and on a decision of the SC in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. IT 2000 (8) SC 54.

The Learned Counsel for the State however forcefully opposed the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that in consonance with the provisions of Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act as the vehicle in question was carrying contraband articles, the same is liable to be confiscated to the State and release of the offending bus during pendency of the trial would greatly prejudice the prosecution. It is also submitted that interim release of the bus shall not be in the interest of justice inasmuch as there is likelihood of its use for drugs traffic once again.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties an perused the documents available. Section 60 (3) of the N.D.P.S. Act specifically stipulates that any article or vehicle used for the purpose of commission of an offence under the said Act; is liable for confiscation. In other words, the said article or vehicle must be before the Court at the time of trial and also at the end of the: trial for the purpose of passing necessary orders. But then, the bus in which the contraband articles were transported should be kept in safe custody, so that when the same is confiscated ''and put to auction, that would fetch maximum price. If the bus is allowed to remain in open place at the police station where no one will take care of it, its condition will deteriorate and even if at the end of the trial an order of confiscation is passed, the same will not be beneficial to the State. Thus, what is required during the pendency of the trial is to make arrangement so as to maintain the offending vehicle in proper condition and ensure its production in course of trial as and when required and/or at the end of the trial if the Court so requires:

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of all the parties, I set aside the impugned order and direct that:

(i) The trial Court shall examine the documents produced by the Petitioner and if it will be satisfied that the Petitioner is the owner, shall release the bus in question bearing registration number WB. 23-A-0397 in favour of the Petitioner for an interim period of subject to the condition that he furnishes cash security of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy five thousand) property security to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) and two sureties each for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) to the satisfaction of the trial Court and with the condition that the offending vehicle shall be produced before the trial Court as and when the Court directs to do so;

(ii) The Petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicle to anyone else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or Engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chasis number, and Engine number of the offending vehicle shall be furnished by the Petitioner before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicle be substituted;

(iii) The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence; and

(iv) before giving interim custody of the of lending vehicle to the Petitioner, three colour photographs of cabinet size from different angles clearly indicating registration number and other particulars of the vehicle shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the Petitioner.

On furnishing the aforesaid documents, the bus in question shall be released in favour of the Petitioner for an interim period subject to final decision of the case. It is made clear that in case of any allegation regarding involvement of the bus in question in any criminal activity or in transportation of any objectionable articles, the order as to interim release of the vehicle shall stands automatically revoked and the trial Court shall have the authority to take necessary steps for seizure of the vehicle. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal revision is disposed of.