The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4048 of 2022 Haresh Ranjan Hota Petitioner Mr. Biswajit Ranjan Tripathy, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 20.01.2023 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 26th September, 2022 under Annexure-1 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.02 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore confirming the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore in M.C. No.99 of 2020 arising out of Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2021 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 24 of 2021, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was rejected for being not maintainable. 3. Perused the copy of the impugned order dated 26th September, 2022 as at Annexure-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though is an accused but he happens to be the owner of the vehicle in question, which is shown to have been seized in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.57 of 2021 and in such Page 1 of 4 capacity, he moved the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore for release of the same in his favour, however, it was rejected on the ground that the disposal has to be in terms of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there is no bar for disposal under the NDPS Act, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C was moved before the court of first instance and thereafter the learned Special Court which should have been entertained and necessary orders was required to be passed thereon but then, it was rejected by both the courts on technical ground. Hence, it is submitted that necessary orders to be passed for immediate release of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.OD- 15-P-6228 involved in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.57 of 2021 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 5. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that such rejection of the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is on technical ground and if the Court is inclined, it may issue a direction to the learned court below for reconsideration of the same if at all it is held that there is no application of Section 52-A of NDPS Act to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On a reading of Annexure-2, the Court finds that the alleged vehicle bearing registration No. OD-15-P-6228 was seized for being involved in transportation of 49 kgs of contraband Ganja. It is further made to appear that the petitioner being an accused but claiming himself to be the owner of the said vehicle approached the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore for its release in terms of Section 457 Cr.P.C. however it was disposed of as not being maintainable with reference to Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and later on confirmed in revision. 7. In so far as Section 52-A of NDPS Act is concerned, it is a provision with regard to disposal of seized contraband drugs and psychotropic substances besides other articles including conveyances Page 2 of 4 referring to which the learned Sessions court reaffirmed that the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In fact the said procedure is prescribed for disposal of seized items after an inventory conducted. A detailed procedure is specified in Section 52-A of NDPS Act as to in what manner such disposal is to be ensured. However, in so far as an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is concerned, if it is moved either by the owner of a vehicle or its rightful claimant, the same shall have to be entertained by the court in seisin over the matter and it cannot be denied or disposed of on the ground that it shall have to be in terms of Section 52-A of NDPS Act. As such there is no bar for the court to entertain a request under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In fact, Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is a special procedure in respect of the seized articles including conveyances which are lying idle, undisposed of and unclaimed whereas anyone claiming to be the owner of any vehicle or such items seized under the NDPS Act does have the liberty to approach the court seeking its release or temporary custody as per and in terms of Section 457 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the petitioner, who claiming himself as the owner did approach the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore for disposal of the seized vehicle and custody in his favour but the same was rejected on technical ground and was even confirmed in revision which in the considered view of the Court is erroneous and not tenable in law. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that since the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was disposed of on technical reason, it should be restored to file for a decision on merit keeping in view the settled position of law to the effect that there is no legal bar for ensuring disposal of seized items by any such provisions of the NDPS Act. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2022 under Annexure-2 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.02 Page 3 of 4 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore and the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore in M.C. No.99 of 2020 arising out of Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2021 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 24 of 2021 are hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore to reconsider and examine the plea of the petitioner vis-a-vis disposal of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. OD-15-P-6228 in terms of Section 457 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to pass appropriate order as per and in accordance with law preferably within a week or so from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a necessary corollary, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is restored to file for its disposal on merit and according to law. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rule. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Page 4 of 4