Sonu Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This Petition has been filed for interim custody of the vehicles, which were seized in Crime No.82/2021 registered at PS. Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa arising out of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Incharge Officer, Malkhana, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa as in an Appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.446/2022 preferred by the co-accused Gajadhar Prasad Pandey @ Gajju pending against the judgment delivered on 02.02.2022 in Sessions Trial No.67/2021, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa had declined to release the vehicles on interim custody.

Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in Sessions Trial No.67/2021 in which the Petitioners were charged for the offence under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120(B) IPC and vide judgment dated 02.02.2022, they have already been acquitted wherein, at para-40, the following order was passed:-

“40. Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-11 AH-2286 and scooty bearing registration No.CG-11 AV- 7261 be given to their registered owners on proper verification after expiration of period of appeal and in case of appeal, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Appellate Court.”

He further submits that the Petitioners are the registered owners of the said vehicles and they have moved an application for release of their respective vehicles on interim custody pending the Appeal which was preferred by the co-accused Gajadhar Prasad Pandey @ Gajju and by way of impugned order, the Incharge Officer, Malkhana, Janjgir had rejected their prayer as the Appeal is pending.

He further submits that the said order is against the proposition which is very well settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and prays for grant of interim custody of the vehicles.

Shri Kesarwani, learned Counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the proposition laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra).

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it has been categorically observed that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police ought not to be retained in custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary and the relevant para i.e. para-8 reads as under:-

“8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in a number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any substantial ground to detain the vehicles as the Petitioners have already been acquitted and there is no purpose in detaining the said vehicles, therefore, it is directed that the concerned Court shall release the vehicles forthwith by imposing appropriate terms and conditions.

With the aforesaid observation, the Petition is accordingly allowed.

A copy of this order be sent to the Incharge Officer, Malkhana, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa for necessary compliance.