Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhawararam S/O Kishnaram Jaat Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4075 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHAWARARAM S/O KISHNARAM JAAT THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY KANWARARAM S/O
KISHNARAM JAAT, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE DANKHA
(BALOTRA), DISTRICT BARMER (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BAGHANA
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. VINITA DWIVEDI, PANEL LAWYER.)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 397
r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02/08/2023 passed by the
Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Neemuch in MJCR no.239/2023 (crime no. 159/
2023), whereby the application filed by the petitioner u/s 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C.c for grant of interim custody of Eicher truck bearing registration no.
RJ-39-GA-5578 has been rejected.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that the aforementioned vehicle was
seized on 18/07/2023 in which 2 Kg opium was being transported by the
petitioner/accused Bhawararam. Subsequently, it was found that the owner of
the aforementioned contraband and the vehicle is the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, accused Bhawararam
is registered owner of the aforementioned vehicle. The applicant being elder
brother and attorney holder to take the interim custody of the vehicle. It is
further submitted that vehicle has been seized on 18/07/2023. The vehicle is
used for daily purposes. The vehicle is placed in open area at police station,
and its machinery will be affected if it remained there and its utility will be
reduced. He is ready to abide all conditions that will be imposed by this court.
Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted interim custody of the
vehicle till the final disposal of the matter.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle on interim custody and he
supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. On due consideration of the rival submissions of the counsel for the
parties, and on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner including the
impugned order, it is found that the application has been rejected by the trial
court that as per section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle is liable to be
confiscated.
7. In the case of Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. [CRR.
2971/2019 judgment dated 27/08/2019] in paragraph 13, coordinate bench
of this court, principal seat at Jabalpur, has held as under:-
"13. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the
trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by
this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam vs State of M.P. 2005 (2)
ANJ MP 351, that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to
be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released
in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should
not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to
be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act."
8. The Apex court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State
Of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] has laid down the procedure for disposal of
valuable item like currency, liquor, vehicle and narcotics drugs and has held as
under:-
"The powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 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 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."
9. The Apex court in the case of Sundarbhai (Supra) has further held as
under:-
"However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned
Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would
take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451
Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept
for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than
fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is
proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in
seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such
articles are implemented properly. "
10. The Apex court in the case of General Insurance Council And
Ors. Vs. State Of A.P. And Ors. [2010 AIR (SCW) 2976] has held as
under:-
"15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are
seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy
substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are
also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions.
Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept
stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from
the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several
valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are
cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on
road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued
hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/ Union
Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro
implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the
activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to
disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector
General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police
of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned
district. "
11. In view of the aforementioned this court is of considered opinion,
that the learned trial court did not take into consideration that keeping vehicle in
the police station for a long period is of no use. Thus the learned trial court has
wrongly rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle involved in
the offence.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The revision
petition as well as application filed by the applicant u/s 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
are hereby allowed. It is directed that the vehicle of the petitioner bearing
registration no. RJ-39-GA-5578 be released on terms and conditions as deemed
fit by the trial court after taking appropriate document, bonds and surety to its
satisfaction.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated
above.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
