ARJUN v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION NARCOTICS CELL INDORE, PRAKOSHT - NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

(BY Smt. Bharti Lakkad, GA) This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the .....NON APPLICANT following: With the consent of both the parties matter is heard finally. ORDER 1/ This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE 2 CRR No.625/2022 dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (under NDPS Act) Ratlam in Special Case No.3/2021, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for Supurdgi of his motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP43-EE-3039 has been rejected. 2/ The facts in brief are that on 16.1.2021 police got discreet information from the informer regarding illegal transportation of contraband. Acting upon the said information, police party reached on the spot, police stopped the motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP43-EE- 3039 and after checking police recovered 2 k.g. opium from the possession of the present applicant and other co-accused person. Police also seized the said motorcycle from the possession of present applicant. Accordingly offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused person. 3/ In the trial Court, the applicant has filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for Supurdgi of the aforesaid motorcycle. After hearing both the parties, trial Court has rejected the application by observing that aforesaid vehicle was being used for transportation of illegal contraband and it was liable to be confiscated. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed the present revision petition. 4/ Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a registered owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE 3 CRR No.625/2022 No.MP43-EE-3039. He is a farmer and businessman and had purchased the vehicle for agricultural purpose. He is also permanent resident of District Ratlam. The vehicle is a machinery and trial will take considerable time and till then the vehicle will remain in unsafe condition. No purpose would be served to render the same unusable. Learned counsel further contended that impugned order passed by the court below is not according to the law. The trial Court has committed error in rejecting the prayer of the applicant. Hence he prays that impugned order dated 23.12.2021 be set aside and seized motorcycle be given on Supurdgi during the pendency of the trial to the applicant. 5/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer made by the applicant by submitting that the applicant’s vehicle was found to be involved in a serious crime registered under the NDPS Act and if the vehicle in question is handed over, the same would be used for commission of another offence. As per Section 52(A)(2) of NDPS Act, the aforesaid vehicle cannot be given on Supurdnama, therefore, this revision deserves for rejection. 6/ I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 7/ It is not disputed that the applicant is the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP43-EE-3039. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE 4 CRR No.625/2022 reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that the articles seized in any criminal case are not to be kept for a long period at police station and in any case for not more than 15 days to one month and the owner of the article should not suffer because of its remaining unused or misappropriated at police station. 8/ Undisputedly, the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day-by-day as the same is lying open to sky and under the heat of the sun and rains. The vehicle is loosing its value day-by-day due to lack of maintenance, natural wear and tear and passing of time. The fact regarding ownership of the petitioner on the said vehicle is not contested by the respondent. Vehicle is lying idle since long in the police station. No need has been shown by the respondent/State that the said vehicle is needed during the trial and there is no likelihood of the earlier conclusion of the trial. 9/ Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P. vide order dated 13.1.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.38089/2021 has held as under:- “14. Since the provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 451/457 have been expressly made applicable by virtue of Section 36-C of the NDPS Act to the proceedings before the Special Court (NDPS) and there is no express bar contained in the NDPS Act for grant of interim custody as contained in Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the M.P. Amendment Act, 1983, therefore, merely on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE 5 CRR No.625/2022 ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is seized for commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted, as jurisdiction of criminal court has to be construed strictly unless expressly excluded.” 10/ In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to allow interim custody of the said vehicle to the applicant on Supurdnama. 11/ Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP43-EE-3039 to the custody of the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed and it is directed that the aforesaid vehicle be released on Supurdgi to the custody of the applicant upon furnishing Supurdginama of Rs.75,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not change the original nature/colour of the vehicle. (ii) The applicant will not alienate or transfer the said vehicle to any third party or shall not create any interest of third party. (iii) In case, in the opinion of the Court the applicant does not produce the vehicle in the condition in which it was IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE 6 CRR No.625/2022 given in his possession, the applicant shall pay the amount which would be determined by the court. (iv) In case of confiscation of the vehicle by the competent authority the applicant shall produce the vehicle or the cost in lieu thereof as determined by the competent authority at his own risk and cost as and when directed by the competent authority. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal revision stands disposed C.C. as per rules. of. trilok/- (Anil Verma) Judge