Jitani Devi v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.934 of 2023 Jitani Devi ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP -------- 06/16.02.2024 The instant criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra in Misc. Cri. Application No.1048 of 2022 whereby the petition for the release of the vehicle (Honda Shine Motorcycle) bearing registration No. JH-02BF 0145, Chasis No. ME4JC832EMDH53839, Engine No.JC83ED0138839 of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Bashishtha Nagar P.S. Case No.104 of 2021 under section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act pending before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S, Chatra. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that as per prosecution case the police party had intercepted the motorcycle which was being driven by Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu and from his possession 950 gram opium was recovered who told that the same contraband was handed over to him by the co-accused Akhilesh Yadav, Hiraman Ganjhu and Choutu Ganjhu to transport the same to Pratappur and in this case the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet and trial has also commenced. 3. The owner of the vehicle (Honda Shine Motorcycle) bearing registration No. JH-02BF 0145, Chasis No. ME4JC832EMDH53839, Engine No.JC83ED0138839 Jitani Devi had filed the release application before the trial court of the said motorcycle and it was rejected vide order dated 02.06.2023 by the learned court below. 4. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 the instant criminal revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is bad in the eye of the law. The learned court below did not take into consideration that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle who had all the requisite documents of the vehicle. The said vehicle is placed in the police station at 2 Cr. Rev. No.934 of 2023
Decision
open place and same is likely to be damaged. In view of the above prayed to allow the criminal revision and to set aside the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on behalf of the State learned PP and perused the material on record. 6. The release application was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court on the ground that Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-02BF 0145, Chasis No. ME4JC832EMDH53839, Engine No.JC83ED0138839 was seized by the police. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The said vehicle is getting damaged due to the weather in the police station kept in open place and he would suffer irreparable loss if the same is not released in his favour and he is also ready to abide with the terms and conditions if any imposed while releasing the vehicle. In view of the above prayed to release the said vehicle in his favour and alongwith this release application the ID of the petitioner and photo copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle was also annexed. 7. The learned court below also called for the report from the police station concerned. The report dated 22.03.2023 is with these contents that the said motorcycle was seized in case crime no.104 of 2021 and no confiscation proceeding has been initiated till date of the said vehicle and there was need of the vehicle in the investigation. 8. The learned court below rejected the release application of the petitioner by passing the impugned order on the ground that since the said vehicle was used in commission of the offence under section 18 of NDPS Act which was serious in nature. 9. Although in the release application the petitioner has not disclosed this fact how his motorcycle came in possession of the accused Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu; Yet in para-7 of this criminal revision petition it has been stated that the petitioner has never transported any opium and the said vehicle was taken by her brother-in-law Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu who is named accused in the instant case and he has been granted bail. The copy of the bail order is annexure no.2. 10. This application was moved on behalf of the petitioner under section 451 of Cr.PC seeking the release of the vehicle on the ground that the said vehicle was given by her brother-in-law. Admittedly the trial has 3 Cr. Rev. No.934 of 2023 commenced. There is nothing on record even in the FIR that the owner of the vehicle has also the connivance with the accused Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu or had knowledge that the said vehicle was being used in commission of the alleged offence. If the vehicle is allowed to be detained in the police station concerned, certainly its utility would be diminished and it may be damaged. It was incumbent upon the learned court below to release the said vehicle after being satisfied that the petitioner was the registered owner of the said vehicle was having all the valid papers of the same. Imposing certain conditions whenever and where the said vehicle was being required at any stage during trial the petitioner was to produce the same and the transfer of the vehicle might have been restrained during pendency of the trial. 11. Per-contra the learned PP for the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that at the subsequent stage the said vehicle may be needed to be confiscated. 12. Admittedly at this stage there is no need of the said vehicle for the confiscation of the same. 13. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujrat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, with regard to release of property, the impugned order passed by the court below bears illegality and the same needs interference. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat” (supra) held as under: “Para 5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. Para 7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC 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 panchnama before handing over possession of the 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 4 Cr. Rev. No.934 of 2023 nature of the property 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. Para 13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition. Para 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 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.” 15. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the court below is set-aside. 16. The learned court below is directed to dispose of the release application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the finding recorded by this Court and also in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai” (supra). 17. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)