V. Prem Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 599 Chatt

                                                                    NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           WPCR No.24 of 2022

     1. V. Prem Singh, S/o Babu Jadhav, presently aged about 29 Years,
        R/o Village Irakpalli, Post and Tahsil Nagalgiddha, Police Station
        Nagalgiddha, District Sangareddi, Telengana

     2. Guruvindapally Vara Prasad Rao, S/o Dev Anandanam, Aged About
        72 Years, Occ - Business, R/o H-No.39-1550-9, DVR Colony,
        Nandigama, District Krishna, Andhra Pradesh

       Through His Attorney Holder (Petitioner No. 1) V. Prem Singh S/o
       Babu Jadhav, Presently Aged About 29 Years, R/o H-No. 1/48,
       Meganayak, Thanda, Errakipalli Tanda (Irakpalli), Village
       Yenukamuri, Nagalgiddha Mandal, Police Station Nagalgiddha,
       District Sangareddi, Telengana.

                                                           ---- Petitioners

                                  Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Superintendent of Police, District
        Sukma, Chhattisgarh

     2. Station House Officer, Police Station Dornapal, District Sukma,
        Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioners            Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate
For Respondents            Mr. Ayaz Naved, GA


                    Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

                             Order On Board

                 Proceeding through Video Conferencing

03/02/2022

1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking a

direction to the respondent authorities to hand over custody of

vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.AP-16-

BD-7280, other articles i.e. ATM Card of SBI, Driving Licence, ATM

Card of Canara Bank, Vehicle Registration Card, Purse and one

mobile phone seized in connection with Crime No.02/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) (2) (C) of NDPS Act

registered at Police Station Dornapal, District Sukma (C.G.) to the

petitioner No.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the car and other articles of the

petitioners were seized by the Police of Police Station Dornapal,

District Sukma in connection with Crime No.02/2018 for the offence

punishable under Section 20 (B) (2) (C) of the NDPS Act.

Subsequently, the petitioner and the co-accused persons were

acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 in

Sessions Trial No.06/2018 (Annexure-P/1). Against the said

judgment of acquittal, the State filed application for leave to appeal

bearing CRMP No.570/2021, which was dismissed by this Court on

24.06.2021 vide Annexure-P/2. Learned trial Court by its judgment

dated 20.01.2021 has directed to handover the vehicle in custody

and other articles to the petitioners and other co-accused, but when

the petitioners went to the SHO, Dornapal to obtain the custody of

the said vehicle, the SHO denied to give custody of the same to the

petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Special

Judge (NDPS) Dantewada in the judgment of acquittal has directed

to handover the vehicle to the petitioners and other articles as well

and has also directed that if the appeal is preferred before the High

Court, then the order of the Appellate Court would be followed. The

application for leave to appeal preferred by the State was dismissed

by this Court and no other direction regarding disposal of the vehicle

was issued therefore the order passed by the learned Trial Court is

maintained regarding disposal of the property. He further submits

that respondent No.2 has wrongly detained the vehicle of the petitioners and other articles as well without any order of the

competent court and the custody of the vehicle and other articles is

arbitrary and illegal, which cannot be sustained.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made

by the petitioners and states that the aforesaid vehicle was seized

under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Section 60 of said Act,

interalia provides for confiscation of any conveyance used for

carrying any psychotropic substances and the procedure of such

confiscation has been provided under the said Act. The provision of

Section 60 of the NDPS act deals with the procedure of confiscation

and the petitioners have not specifically disclosed any information

regarding the proceedings of the confiscation of the seized vehicle.

He further submits that the petitioners have a remedy to approach

before the court below by way of filing application under Section 452

of the Cr.P.C. for release of their vehicle. Therefore, this petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and

is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on

record.

6. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the petitioner and co-accused

persons vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 in Sessions Trial

No.06/2018. In its judgment, the Trial Court has directed as under :

61. izdj.k esa tIrh i=d izn'kZ ih 21 vuqlkj vkjksih Ogh- izseflag ls tIr LdkfiZ;ks okgu dzekad AP16BD7280 dks mlds iathd`r okgu Lokeh okjk izlkn jko xqfjfoUnkiYyh] tks fd izdj.k esa layXu LdkfiZ;ks okgu dzekad AP16 BD 7280 ds vkj-lh- cqd dh Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk lR;kfir izfr ls nf'kZr gS] dks vihy vof/k i'pkr e; nLrkost fu;ekuqlkj okil fd;k tkosA vihy gksus dh n'kk esa ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;

vuqlkj fujkd`r fd;k tkosA

61 (d) izdj.k esa tIrh i=d izn'kZ ih 21 vuqlkj vkjksih Ogh- izseflag ls tIr 1 ux LVsV cSad dk ,-Vh-,e- dkMZ uacj 6075320018914555] 1 ux MkbZfoax ykbZlsal dkMZ uacj TS21520150004007 1 ux Reliance one dkMZ] 1 ux fot; dqekj ds uke dk dsujk CkSad dk ,-Vh-,e- dkMZ uacj 4709390448015207] 1 ux okgu jftLVªs'ku dkMZ] 1 ux xk<+k dRFkk jax dk ilZ] ft;ksuh , 1 daiuh dk eksckbZy ftlesa ,;jVsy vkSj ft;ks dk fle yxk gqvk dks vihy vof/k i'pkr fu;ekuqlkj vkjksih Ogh- izseflag dks okil fd;k tkosA vihy gksus dh n'kk esa ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj fujkd`r fd;k tkosA"

7. The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged by the State by way

of leave to appeal, but the same was dismissed by this Court vide

order dated 24.06.2021 in Cr.M.P. No.570/2021 and the judgment of

the Trial Court was sustained.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the

respondents shall handover the seized vehicle Mahindra Car

bearing registration No.AP-16-BD-7280 and other articles i.e. ATM

Card of SBI, Driving Licence, ATM Card of Canara Bank, Vehicle

Registration Card, Purse and one mobile phone to petitioner No.1,

as mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Court, within a period of

60 days.

9. Though the petitioner No.2 is the registered owner of the aforesaid

vehicle, but since the power of attorney has been executed by the

petitioner No.2 in favour of petitioner No.1, therefore, the aforesaid

vehicle be handed over to petitioner No.1.

Sd/-

Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala