Rajendra Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.2.2022 passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Jashpur in Criminal Case No.9/2022 whereby the application preferred by the applicant seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e. Omni Maruti Car bearing registration No.CG-15/CS-1906 on Supurdnama has been dismissed, the applicant has preferred the present petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on receiving secret information by the Police of Police Station Tapkara that in an Omni Car, contraband Ganja was being transported, the police intercepted the said vehicle and seized it and one person namely, Prasanna Das has been arrested.

Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the trial 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 State Counsel would support the impugned order.

Heard leaned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

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.”

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

Accordingly, the application preferred by the applicant 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. It is made clear that at the time of handing over of the vehicle on Supurdnama, the applicant shall also furnish covered Insurance Policy of the said vehicle.

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