Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mahadeo Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3106 Jhar

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3106 Jhar
Judgement Date : 25 August, 2021

Jharkhand High Court
Mahadeo Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2021
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Revision No.752 of 2020
                                         ---
            Mahadeo Sao                                ...           ...      Petitioner
                                   Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                     ...           ...Opposite Party
                                         ---
               CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                         ---
            For the Petitioner            : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
                                            Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.
            For the State                 : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
                                         ---

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---

04/25.08.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present revision application has been filed for release of the vehicle- Bolero bearing Registration No.JH-02-AL-3712 and for setting aside the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in M.C.A. No.57 of 2020 in which the alleged vehicle has not been released in favour of the owner of the vehicle.

3. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle has been seized on 21.05.2019 and since then it is lying in the police station without due care. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which has been allegedly used in the commission of the crime under N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that the court below has rejected the prayer for releasing the said vehicle only on the ground that the vehicle has been used in the commission of crime, and it cannot be the reason for rejection of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat has submitted that the commercial vehicle usually be released in favour of the owner because it is national loss and further it helps to reduce over crowing in the police station. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the court.

4. On the other side learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle and it has been submitted that the vehicle in question has been used for carrying opium of commercial quantity and the vehicle was driving by the owner himself. It is not a case that the vehicle has been used without knowledge of the owner rather the owner was involved in the commission of the crime and carrying the narcotics substance in commercial quantity.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the vehicle in question, has been used in transportation of narcotics substances for which the present case has been lodged. It is settled principle of law that tools or any property used in the commission of crime are not punishable rather the owner is punished by confiscating the tools or properties. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the interim release of the mudammal articles or the property which has been used for the commission of any offence.

6. Thus, the mandate of the law is loud and clear that the concerned magistrate has to deal with the mudammal promptly to avoid national loss and the police station not unnecessarily overcrowded by mudammal.

7. In view of above consideration, the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in M.C.A. No.57 of 2020 is, hereby, set-aside and the case is remitted back to the concerned court and the concerned court is mandated to pass an appropriate order under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Further, the concerned court should verify the necessary documents and shall also prepare panchnama etc. and shall take proper indemnity bond etc. also before releasing the vehicle.

8. With above observation and direction, the present criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.752 of 2020 stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter