Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 702 of 2023 Bal Sarovar Ram S/o Late Shri Mohar Say Turiya Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Agriculturist R/o Village Beldagi, Thana- Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 26.08.2025 1. 2. 3. Though, today the present appeal is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, however with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2023 stands disposed of. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment “para 31 which relates to confiscation of seized vehicle” dated 25.02.2020 passed in ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.02 11:30:44 +0530 2 Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 21/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS Act, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.09.2017, Inspector of Police Station Jaynagar, namely Tejnath Singh, received secret information from an informant to the effect that the appellant, while transporting a huge quantity of contraband article Ganja in a vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15CX-9185, was transporting from Beldagi to Jamdai. Accordingly, an information panchnama was prepared, and after complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, a search was conducted. During the search, 2.125 Kg of contraband article Ganja was seized from the possession of the accused/appellant, who was arrested, and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him. 5. Thereafter, the police of the concerned police station investigated the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses, and upon filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant filed an application for Supradnama of the said vehicle. The said application was allowed, and the vehicle was handed over to the appellant, being the registered owner, vide order dated 19.07.2018. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the appellant. After completion of trial, the appellant was acquitted of the said charge. However, the learned trial Court, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant/owner of the vehicle, passed an order regarding disposal of the vehicle. In paragraph 31 of the judgment, the trial Court rejected the order of Supradnama and held that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated. It was further directed in the said 3 order that a separate MJC be registered. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the impugned judgment, by which the order for confiscation of the vehicle has been passed, is bad in the eye of law, as before passing the impugned order no notice or opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant, the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to law and the material available on record. She submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that no contraband article was kept or transported in the vehicle by the appellant, and the prosecution agency has failed to prove that the vehicle was used in the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act. Consequently, a judgment of acquittal has been passed, and once the accused has been acquitted of the charges, the order of confiscation is bad in law. The Court was required to hand over the vehicle to the person from whose possession it was seized when no offence was proved. She further submits that learned trial Court committed an error in passing the order of confiscation of the vehicle and in issuing notice to the appellant for confiscation proceedings, despite the fact that the appellant had already been acquitted of the charges and it was not proved that any offence under the NDPS Act had been committed by the use of the said vehicle. On the one hand, there is a settled direction that if an appeal is filed, the order for disposal of the seized property is governed by the directions of the appellate Court. On the other hand, without verifying whether any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant had been filed or not, the trial Court issued notice for confiscation of the vehicle. She also submits that the seized vehicle of the appellant was released on Supurdnama during the pendency of the trial, and the appellant did not violate any condition of the Supurdnama order. The appellant had no knowledge about the judgment regarding 4 confiscation of the vehicle, and he came to know of the same for the first time only when he received the notice of MJC, which was registered for confiscation proceedings of the vehicle. She submits that learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment for confiscation of the seized vehicle, despite the fact that the vehicle belongs to the appellant, and once the prosecution has failed to prove that an offence under the NDPS Act was committed, the seized property cannot be confiscated. She submits that it is a settled principle of law that when the ingredients of the alleged offence are not proved and the accused is acquitted of the charges, the seized property must be handed over to the person from whose possession it was seized. Learned trial Court has passed the order in a routine manner without considering the fact that once the accused has been acquitted of the charges, then without any sufÏcient reason the seized property cannot be confiscated. The finding of the learned trial Court is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of N. Madhavan vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1979 SC 1829, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that articles seized during investigation, after completion of trial, should ordinarily be handed over to the person from whom they were seized, unless it is proved that they belong to a third person. In the present case, the vehicle was seized from the appellant, who is the owner and in possession thereof. Therefore, the finding recorded in para 31 of the judgment is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that in paragraph No. 31 of the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surajpur, while cancelling the Supurdnama of the aforesaid vehicle granted to the appellant, has issued a notice under Section 60 of the 5 NDPS Act regarding confiscation of the said vehicle. However, till date, the confiscation proceedings have not been concluded owing to the non- participation of the appellant in the said process. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon being confronted with the preliminary objection raised by the learned State Counsel, learned counsel for the appellant could not give any plausible explanation. 11. 12. In view the above, the present appeal stands dismissed, with liberty reserved to the appellant to participate in the proceedings under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, if any is pending. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.- Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE