Kamta Prashad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 474 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                      NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPC No. 517 of 2022

   1. Kamta Prashad Sahu S/o Shantosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years
      R/o Village Behind Atal Nagar Awash, Ward No. 22, Tilda Nevra,
      District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Raipur, District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.

   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
      Vidhan Sabha District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State           : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L.


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
27.01.2022

1. Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the District Collector in

entertaining the application for Supurdnama filed by the petitioner

seeking custody of his car bearing registration no. C.G.04N.L.4559 i.e.

Maruit Ertiga.

2. The said vehicle was seized by the State Authorities under the

provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. As on the date of incident i.e.

28.08.2021, the vehicle was said to have been carrying 126 bulk litter

of liquor. The vehicle was being driven by Awinash Wadhwa and Rahul

Wadhwa. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and

is said to have handed over the said vehicle to Awinash Wadhawa and

Rahul Wadhwa for some private personal purpose when the incident

occurred. The Surpurdnama application which the petitioner had

moved before the JMFC, stood rejected on 08.09.2021. The rejection

was on the ground of the specific bar provided under the Act on

account of the confiscation proceedings having been initiated.

Subsequently, the petitioner moved an appropriate application before

the District Collector in the confiscation proceedings who has refused

to entertain the said application for grant of Supurdnama vide its order

dated 18.01.2021 and have proceeded further on the confiscation

aspect and notice has been issued to the registered owner i.e. the

petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is more than five

months that the vehicle is in custody of respondent-authorities and is

lying in the open and there is all possibility that the vehicle to get

damaged if not used. He further submits that the vehicle is no longer

required for the respondents either in the confiscation case or for the

matter of the trial under the Excise Act. Counsel for the petitioner

undertakes to make available the said vehicle to the respondents as

and when required and ordered by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.

State of Gujrat, reported in 2002(10) SCC 283.

5. The State Counsel opposing the petition submits that the confiscation

proceedings since has already been initiated and there being a bar

from the Courts taking cognizance on such matters pending the

confiscation proceedings, the order cannot be said to be bad in any

manner, nor can it be said to be contrary to law. Thus prayed for

rejection of the present writ petition.

6. Undisputedly, the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in a criminal

case under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The petitioner does not seem

to be an accused in the said case. The accused seems to be Awinash

Wadhwa and Rahul Wadhwa, who were present in the vehicle at the

time of incident. The investigation part is already complete and it is

more than five months that the vehicle is in custody of the respondents.

No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle as of now

under the custody of the respondents, particularly when the petitioner

undertakes to make available the vehicle as and when required by the

respondent-authorities.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State

of Gujrat, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, in paragraphs 7 and 17 has

laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by

police. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

"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 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."

XXX XXX XXX

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the polices 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."

6. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case

of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujrat & Another, reported in

2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is

not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in open

condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather

conditions for a long period.

7. In the instant case, trial is going on and confiscation proceeding is

yet to be completed and therefore no useful purpose would be served if

the vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions

at the police station. On the contrary, if the vehicle can be released to

the Petitioner subject to certain conditions he can use it so that the

vehicle does not become junk after some time.

8. The aforesaid stand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been

followed by this High Court in numerous cases and where this Court

had ordered for release of vehicle on Surpurdnama conditionally.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is also inclined to entertain and

allow the present writ petition and direct that till the confiscation

proceedings are completed by the District Collector, the seized vehicle

belonging to the Petitioner, i.e. Maruti Ertiga, bearing Registration No.

C.G.04N.L.4559, be released to the Petitioner upon his furnishing an

appropriate bond and guarantee to the satisfaction of confiscation

authorities for release of the said vehicle. In the bond he shall give a

specific undertaking that he shall not change the ownership of the

vehicle, nor shall he change the colour of the vehicle, neither shall he

create a third party right or interest over the said vehicle as long as the

confiscation proceeding is not concluded. He shall also undertake that

he would be producing the vehicle as and when required by the

prosecution/State Authorities either for the purpose of investigation or

trial in the criminal case going on or even at any appellate stage later

on. He shall further undertake before the respondent-authorities that he

would be meeting all the requisite formalities required under the Motor

Vehicle Act and Rules as long as the vehicle is in custody of the

petitioner. So far as surety is concerned, it shall be for an amount equal

to the present day value of the vehicle seized to the satisfaction of the

concerned Authorities.

10. The present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Jyoti