Balrampur, C.G v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, Dis
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.05.02 17:17:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:19674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 780 of 2024 Aditya Jaiswal S/o Arjun Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Student, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Adhat Marg, , Police Station, Tahsil And Post- Ramanujganj, District- Ramanujganj-Balrampur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, C.G. ...Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. 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 properly in detail; and 4. 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. 17. 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 4 Crr 780 of 2024 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. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate 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 concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. 8. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the matter of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs State of Gujrat and another, (2013) 3 SCC 240, wherein hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in an open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by Owner of the vehicle for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be held to be sustainable, therefore, the same is accordingly set aside. 5 Crr 780 of 2024 10. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application preferred 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. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. padma Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE
Arguments
: Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Ms Laxmeen Kashyap, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 30.04.2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has preferred this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Surguja, Ambikapur CG in Special Sessions Case-358 of 2024, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 457 of the CrPC, seeking Supurdnama of the vehicle i.e. Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle, bearing No.CG30C-4132, which was seized in commission of offence under Section 22C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) has been dismissed. 2 Crr 780 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is registered owner of the vehicle in question, and he has given the said vehicle to his brother- Nikku Jaiswal, from whom the Police has seized the vehicle in the said offence on 17.06.2024. He would further submit that he has filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle, which has been rejected by the learned Special Court NDPS Act, holding that since the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated and involved in commission of offence punishable under Section 22C of the NDPS Act, and cannot be directed to be released on interim custody. It is also submitted that the vehicle was kept idle at the concerned Police Station, and is deteriorating day-by-day, and further, the Special Court has rejected the application in an arbitrary manner, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, and therefore, the order impugned be set aside, and the application for interim custody of the vehicle may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submit that learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Section 451 of the CrPC provides procedure for order of custody which reads as under: 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. — When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit 3 Crr 780 of 2024 for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes - (a)property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;(b)any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), it has been held as under: