Chattisgarh High Court
Rudro Ram Khutiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 453 of 2021
Order reserved on : 04/01/2022
Order delivered on : 25/02/2022
Rudro Ram Khutiya, S/o Shri Chandro Ram Khutiya, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Village- Baturkachhar, Post- Kilkila, P.S. &
Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Department of Food, Civil
Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station- Urga, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
25.02.2022
1. This petition is filed against the order dated 25.01.2021 passed
by the Collector Korba whereby the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 for releasing
the vehicle of the petitioner on Supurdnama has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is registered owner of
vehicle Bolero registration No. C.G.-13-AB-5684 which was seized in
connection with Crime No. 332/2019 for the offence punishable under
Section 457, 380, 411, 413, 120-B of IPC and Section 3, 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act registered at Police Station- Urga, District-
Korba (C.G.) in which the petitioner is not an accused and the criminal
case has not been decided for the commission of offence of Essential
Commodities Act. Petitioner has filed application for releasing the
vehicle on Supurdnama before learned Magistrate but the learned
Collector has rejected the same stating that no report for confiscation
of the vehicle has been submitted by the respondent No.3/Station
House Officer, Police Station- Urga and the vehicle is lying at the police
Station for more than 1 year and 6 months and he is debarred from
using such vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
registered owner of the vehicle. Learned Collector has committed an
error of law in passing the impugned order by dismissing the
application of the petitioner for interim custody/Supurdnama of the
vehicle though he is ready to fulfill all the terms and conditions and also
ready to furnish the surety amount as directed in this regard. It is
settled principle of law that when the ingredients of the offence has not
been proved then the seized property is to be handed over to the
owner from whose possession it is seized. The prosecution has not
proved that the vehicle was used in commission of offence, therefore,
the order of rejection of Supurdnama application is not in accordance
with law. Learned Collector failed to consider the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court in series of
judgment and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set
aside.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
5. Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held in paras 5
& 7 which read as under:-
"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.
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."
6. It is clear from the impugned order that confiscation proceedings
are not initiated yet, therefore, impugned order dated 25.01.2021 is
quashed and the petition is allowed. The vehicle is directed to be
released to the petitioner on the following conditions:-
1. Before release of vehicle, proper panchnama be prepared.
2. Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond
should also be produced that the article would be produced if
required at the time of trial
3. Supurdnama to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and like sum
of local surety be obtained before release of vehicle.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
Ruchi
