Narayan Sahu @ Narayan Teli vs State Of Chhattisgarh

By way of this revision, the applicant is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 30.9.2022 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balodabazar, District­Balodabazar­Bhatapara in Special Criminal Case No.09/2022, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 CrPC seeking interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG­04­LJ­1947 has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a registered owner of the vehicle. He further submits that though the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'Act of 1985'), yet the provisions contained in Section 451 of the CrPC would be applicable and as per the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat {(2002) 10 SCC 283}, owner of the vehicle would not suffer because of its remaining unused for long period of time. Therefore, he prays to allow the instant revision and set aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel while opposing the revision submits that since the consequential proceedings of the seized article are to be made as per the provision prescribed under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, therefore, the application for interim custody of the vehicle has rightly been rejected by the Court below.

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

Section  451  Cr.P.C  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 paras­7, 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.”

Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) to the facts of the present case, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be held to be sustainable.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balodabazar to pass order on an application filed by the applicant for interim custody of the vehicle within a period of 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Special Judge (NDPS Act) may impose reasonable conditions for the ultimate production of the said vehicle during trial.

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