State Of Assam vs Dulal Bora

Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

This criminal revision petition under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.5.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in CID P.S. Case No.27/2019 putting the two vehicles, referred to in the impugned order, in the custody of the registered owner i.e. the sole respondent.

Mr. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that both the vehicles were put in the custody of its registered owner i.e. the sole respondent, who had purchased the same through black money and both the vehicles were required to be confiscated by the State.

I have examined the entire records including the impugned order. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) has passed a thorough and detail order putting the aforesaid two vehicles i.e. vehicles Nos. (1) Mahindra Scorpio bearing no.AS-01-EB-8223 and (2) Ford Endeavour bearing no.AS-01-DG-8880, in the custody of the respondent herein. The order was passed invoking the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sectin 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. The learned Court below has invoked the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and this Court does not find any illegality in the order so far granting the custody of the aforesaid two vehicles is concerned.

As submitted by Mr. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the vehicles might have been purchased by ill-gotten money or black money, but this does not necessarily mean that till the proceedings in the case is completed, the same can be confiscated. The confiscation has to be on the basis of the findings recorded after trial of the case, and not before or during the proceedings of the case. That apart, the learned Court below has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai -Vs. - State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638, and has passed the order referring to the mandate of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

We are alive to the fact that the aforesaid vehicles were seized in the month of January, 2020 and it is now lying for more than ten months. That being so, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned herein this petition and, therefore, no interference is called for in respect of the said order by this Court.

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.

However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid vehicles be put in the custody of the sole respondent and the respondent shall not dispose of the same in any manner and also shall make the vehicles aforesaid available to the Court as and when required during the pendency of the trial or at the conclusion of the trial. The impugned order dated 27.5.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), shall now be complied with by the investing agency.