Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1298 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010060492021




                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./116/2021

           MD ABDULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR
           S/O MD FAZAR ALI, R/O VILL- HELAPAKRI, P.S.-MORNOI, DIST-
           GOALPARA, ASSAM

           2: SANOWAR HUSSAIN
            S/O FAJAR ALI
            R/O VILL- HELAPAKRI
            P.S.-MORNOI
            DIST- GOALPARA
           ASSA

           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

           2:S.I. MANNA PACHANI
            S/O BASIJAN PACHANI
            I/C JAMBARI OUT POST
            P.S.-BOKO
            DIST- KAMRUP
           ASSAM
            PIN-78112

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                      BEFORE
               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

                                    :: O R D E R ::

01-04-2021 Page No.# 2/3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The present two petitioners Md. Abdullah Sheikh and Sanowar Hussain were apprehended by NAKA checking while they were travelling in vehicle No. AS01 DT 6646 and at the time of NAKA checking a cash amount of Rs.3,14,000/- along with 11,200 numbers of tablet marked as WY packed in 61 numbers of packet were recovered which is suspected to be METHAMPHETAMINE. The vehicle as well as drugs were seized and accused persons were arrested on 08.05.2020 and the Boko PS Case No.467/2020 was registered under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act. Subsequently the accused persons were released on bail and the vehicle was also released to its registered owner. Present two petitioners after release on bail prayed for zimma of the seized money before the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon) and the learned Special Judge after obtaining a report from the IO that the accused persons were involved in illegal drug peddling and the seized money was related to the illegal drugs business and the court refused to give zimma to the petitioners vide its order dated 18.02.2021.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of rejection, present revision has been preferred by the petitioners with the contention that both the petitioners are business partners, dealing with supply of wholesale vegetables to different places and on the day of occurrence they hired the vehicle from Sahajahan Ali where from the alleged contraband was recovered otherwise the amount seized are the sale proceeds of vegetables by the petitioners. It contends that they were in dire need of money to run their business and rejection of the order has cause immense hardship to them.

Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the seized amount may be the illegal money procured by running of such illegal drug business.

The learned trial court can pass appropriate order at the end of the trial for payment of such money if the offence stands proved. On the other hand, it is also noted that vehicle in question belongs to another person who has already taken it into custody and the accused has pleaded that those are the money from their vegetable business. It is also noted that no any confiscation proceeding has been initiated in this regard which is reflected from the report of the IO.

Petitioner herein has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein it is observed that the matter of custody and disposal of seized property, pending trial can be dealt under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that the power under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously, which would serve various purposes, namely:-

Page No.# 3/3

" 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."

Considering all above and the guideline given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is hereby directed to release the seized amount of money to the petitioners with appropriate bond/undertaking, by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stand disposes of at the motion stage itself.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant