Naushad Khan vs State Of M.P.

Inherent powers of this Court are invoked u/S.482 Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and validity of the order of the trial Court by which the application for interim release of vehicle u/S.457 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The vehicle which is a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No.MP07 CB 1387 was seized in connection with offences punishable u/S.8/20 of the NDPS Act. 202 gms of smack was recovered from the car. The petitioner is said to be the registered owner of the car but has not been arrayed as an accused in the said offence.

The vehicle after being seized on 03/09/2019 is lying idle and subject to the vagaries of nature.

The Apex Court and this Court on various occasions has time and again held that detaining the seized vehicle in connection with offences at a Police Station is to nobody's advantage. The seized vehicle not only occupies much space at the Police Station/Malkhana but also can not be put to any other productive use. It is common knowledge that Police Station have scarce infrastructure. Thus, it is always advisable to release the seized vehicle on interim custody during the pendency of the trial subject to terms and conditions as sought fit by the court of competent jurisdiction. In fact, keeping the seized vehicle standing at the Police Station, open to the vagaries of the nature, amounts to wastage of national asset. The vehicle which can be useful for day to day life or in the commercial activities is made to stand unnecessarily for weeks, months and sometimes years together awaiting the conclusion of trial. It is common knowledge that criminal trial take more than reasonable time to be concluded for reasons beyond the control of the trial Court. Custody of the vehicle on an interim bases should advisedly be given to the rightful owner since the pendency of the trial on such terms and conditions that sought fit by the competent court so that the vehicle can be asked to produce at any point of time and to prevent any change in the ownership, quality, colour or any other attribute of the vehicle.

3.1 The relevant extract of Apex Court Judgment rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"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 panchnama 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.

In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by 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 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 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."

3.2 Similarly in General Insurance Council and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 226 it has been held as under:-

"It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only do they occupy substantial space in the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its roadworthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart form the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police station, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the division/ Commissioner of Police concerned of the cities/ Superintendent of Police concerned of the district concerned."

In terms of above, this Court is of the considered view that failure of justice has occasioned by detaining the vehicle in question thereby allowing the degradation of its economic value due to vagaries of nature. In the present case, the vehicle in question is lying in a state of non-use since the last more than 11 months. Before the vehicle in question is rendered non functional and it is too late to turn back the clock, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition in following terms:

(i) The impugned order dated 20/01/2020 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), district - Morena, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner u/S.457 Cr.P.C. stands quashed.

(ii) That, the learned Trial Judge is directed to release the interim custody of vehicle in favour of the petitioner after verifying the fact of the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, on a surety and security of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge.

(iii) That, petitioner shall file an undertaking that he shall not alter the shape, colour, ownership or any other physical attribute of the vehicle in question during the period of interim custody and shall produced the same as and when the learned Trial Judge directed.

A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.