[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 11 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.886 of 2025
Susanta Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. L. Mahapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
11.12.2025
Order No. I.A. No.1272 of 2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. Instant petition is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
3. A delay of 105 days is reported as per the SR.
4. Accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner and
submission of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
him and objection of the State, the Court is inclined to condone
the same in the interest of justice.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered
6. IA is disposed of with the delay being condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
1. Heard Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner seeking release
of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-BU-
1273 in his favour directed to have been confiscated by the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Phulbani, Kandhamal in 2(a) CC Case No.17 of 2024 by
judgment dated 25th April, 2025 as at Annexure-1 on the
grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question
and was not an accused before the learned court below. The
further submission is that the case before the learned court
below ended in acquittal, however, the seizure vehicle of the
petitioner was directed to be confiscated under Section 60(3) of
the NDPS Act. The submission is that the alleged vehicle could
not have been confiscated even when the accused who faced
the trial was acquitted for the offence Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act and therefore, the same should be immediately
released in favour of the petitioner.
4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for
the State, who request for an adjournment but on merits,
justifies the decision on confiscation by the Sessions Court,
while disposing of the complaint in 2(a) CC Case No.17 of
2024.
5. Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act stipulates that any
conveyance used in transporting narcotic substance liable to
confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thereof
unless the owner of the same proves that it was so used without
his knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if
any and the person in-charge of such conveyance and that each
of them has taken all reasonable precautions against such use.
6. In the case at hand, the petitioner was not an accused
hence there was no such scope for the learned court below to
consider the effect of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act but the
fact of matter is, even after the order of acquittal in favour of
the accused who faced the trial, the learned court below
proceeded to direct the vehicle in question to be confiscated in
terms thereof. A decision of this Court in Kishore Kumar
Choudhury Vrs. State of Orissa (2017) 66 OCR 111 is cited
at the Bar to submit that the vehicle instead of being directed to
be confiscated should have been released in favour of the
petitioner. The learned court below even after the order of
acquittal, ordered confiscation of the vehicle. No notice was
issued to the petitioner by the learned court below before
considering disposal of the vehicle under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
According to the Court when the petitioner was not an accused
and not even noticed immediately after the judgment vide
Annexure-1, the learned court below could not have directed
confiscation of the alleged vehicle. In other words, the
conclusion of the Court is that the learned court below ought to
have directed release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the
owner or rightful claimant instead of the order of confiscation
after the order of acquittal with necessary enquiry conducted,
an exercise, which has not been undertaken in the case at hand.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the petitioner is directed to submit an application
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Phulbani, Kandhamal in 2(a) CC Case No.17 of 2024
and upon receiving the same within 10 days from today, the
release of the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-
BU-1273 shall be directed in his favour subject to proof of
ownership with a proper enquiry held.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
