Daniel Majhi vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 11718 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLA No.175 of 2019

              Daniel Majhi
                                                    ....         Appellant

                                   Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

                                         -versus-
              State of Odisha                       ....     Respondent

                                   Mr. R. Tripathy,
                                   Addl.Standing Counsel

                                  CORAM:
                              JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                     ORDER

Order No. 15.11.2021

05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No.32 of 2016 for offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2018, he was acquitted of all the charges and the learned trial Court directed the seized Hero Honda Splendor blue and silver colour motor cycle bearing registration No.OD-18-B-0447 being an unclaimed property, to be subjected to confiscation after four months of the appeal period by means of public auction in presence // 2 //

of the S.D.P.O, R. Udayagiri by the Inspector in- charge of R. Udayagiri police station under section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sale proceeds shall be deposited in favour of the State under sections 60(3)/63 of the N.D.P.S. Act under intimation to the court and if any appeal would be preferred against the judgment, such confiscation order would be subject to the direction of the appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated by the learned trial Court and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the appellant before passing such order of confiscation and therefore, the order of confiscation is per se illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. He placed reliance on sections 60 and 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

It appears from the case records that the petitioner has neither raised any claim before the learned trial Court that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle nor filed any documents to that effect.

The question that comes up for consideration as to whether the appellant who has not raised any claim before the learned trial Court and the order of confiscation order has been passed, can challenge the order of confiscation before the appellate Court? The learned counsel for the appellant seeks some time to examine this point and address the Court on the next

// 3 //

date.

List this matter in the week commencing from 29.11.2021.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge P