Manish Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC being aggrieved with the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, NDPS Act, Jashpur (CG), in Crime No.17/2022, whereby, the application preferred by power of attorney holder-Amresh Chandra under Section 457 of CrPC seeking Supurdnama of the vehicle seized in commission offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NPPS Act'), was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle – Artica bearing registration No. U.P. 14-CL-7929 and he has duly executed a power of attorney in favour of Amresh Chandra for releasing the vehicle in interim custody, which was involved in commission of offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. He would further submit that Amresh Chandra has filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle, which has been rejected by the Special Court holding that since the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, therefore, it cannot be directed to be released on interim custody. He would also that the vehicle is standing idle at the concerned Police Station and deteriorating day by day and further, the Special Court has rejected the application in an arbitrary manner contrary to the principles laid down in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat {(2002) 10 SCC 283}, therefore, the order impugned may be set aside and application for custody of the said vehicle may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submit that the Special Court has rightly rejected the application.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

Section 451 CrPC provides procedure for order of custody which reads as under:-

“451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending 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.”

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), it has been held at paras-7, 17 & 21 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 article 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.

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 applications for return of such vehicles.

However these powers are to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.”

Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the matter of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 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 an open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by power of attorney holder for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be held to be sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set aside.

Consequently, the application preferred under Section 457 of the CrPC before the Court below is allowed and the concerned Court shall, while passing the necessary order within a period of 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, regarding interim custody of the vehicle, impose reasonable conditions for the ultimate production of the vehicle during trial.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.