Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 January, 2023
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5698 of 2022
Vinod Chauhan S/o Rajpat Sethiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill. Sihi
Post Rautmau, Thana Jahanaganj Distt.-Ajamgarh (U.P.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Police Department
Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Collector/district Magistrate Jagdalpur District-Bastar (C.G.)
3. The S.H.O. P.S. Nagarnaar, District Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate
For State : Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
02/01/2023
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the respondent
No.2 the instant writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order
the respondent No.2 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner
for releasing his Truck bearing registration No. UP-54/D-4223.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle number has
been wrongly got typed in the impugned order as "UP-54/D-4243"
whereas it is in fact "UP-54/D-4223". The said vehicle was seized by
the Excise Department for unauthorizedly transporting 5093.88 bulk
liter of foreign liquor. The seizure was made as early as on 20.07.2021
since then the vehicle is in possession of the Excise Department.
Meanwhile, the respondent authorities have also initiated confiscation
proceedings under the Excise Act in respect of the said vehicle involved
with the illegal transportation of the liquor.
3. The petitioner herein is also a co-accused in the criminal case that was
initiated pursuant to the seizure of the said vehicle and the criminal
case is pending consideration before the J.M.F.C., Jagdalpur. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved an application for
releasing of the vehicle on Supurdnama, which stood rejected vide the
impugned order dated 05.09.2022, against which the present writ
petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v.
State of Gujrat" reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, which has also been
followed by this Court in various cases of similar nature.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of "Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai" (supra),
in paragraphs 7 & 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."
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. In the said 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.
7. The aforesaid stand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been
followed by this High Court in "Kamta Prashad Sahu v. State of
Chhattisgarh" WPC No. 517 of 2022 and numerous other cases also
and where this Court had ordered for release of vehicle on
Supurdnama conditionally.
8. 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 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.
9. The present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
