Anshu Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 143 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 143 MP
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anshu Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 4 January, 2022

Author: Nandita Dubey

                                   1




        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.47172/2021
                   (Anshu Singh Vs. State of M.P.)


Jabalpur, Dated :04.01.2022

     Shri     Arunodaya     Singh,     learned       counsel    for   the
petitioner.
     Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 16.06.2021 passed by

Special Judge, NDPS Act, Rewa in Special Case No. 46/2021,

whereby her application under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C.

has been rejected.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the police of Police

Station, Sohagi, district Rewa registered a case under

Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/13 of

M.P. Drugs Control Act against the applicant for illegally

transporting 160 bottles of Codeine Syrup (Narcotic Drug)

which was seized from Swift Dzire vehicle bearing

registration No. UP-70-DH-3411, the same was registered in

his name. During the pendency of the case, an application

under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the

applicant for release of the aforesaid vehicle, which was

rejected by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, which is kept

unattended for a long period at the police station premises.

It is contended that if the vehicle is not returned to the

applicant, it will turn into junk day by day. It is contended

that the vehicle may be handed over to him by taking

appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said

vehicle.

Per contra, Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for

the respondent/State opposes the prayer. It is submitted that

applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and the

aforesaid vehicle was found illegally transporting 160 bottles

Codeine Syrup (Narcotic Drug), if the vehicle is handed over

to the applicant, there is a chance that the vehicle may use

again for committing similar type of offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

The issue came up for consideration before the

Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai

Vs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and the Supreme

Court has observed :-

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

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

In the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs.

State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358 the Supreme Court

has observed :-

"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not

to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. ...."

The ratio of the aforesaid judgments squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. The order of the

trial Court is, therefore, quashed.

It is directed that the seized vehicle, Swift Dzire

bearing registration No. UP-70-DH-3411, shall be handed

over to the applicant on Supurdginama subject to producing

the original registration certificate and further on satisfying

the following conditions :-

(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) for the aforesaid vehicle, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.

(ii) That, the applicant shall got the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry the photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the photograph of person identifying him before

the Court which would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.

(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third party interest and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable.