Tapan Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisdha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 5919 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tapan Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisdha .... Opposite Party on 17 June, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLREV No.128 of 2025

            Tapan Kumar Dash                        ....            Petitioner
                                                    Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
                                        -Versus-
            State of Odisdha                        ....      Opposite Party
                                                       Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC


                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                       ORDER

17.06.2025 I.A. No.202 of 2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay of 276 days in filing of the revision on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not file the revision within the time stipulated as he was directed to avoid strenuous exercise being a kidney donor and for being hospitalized at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar during the period between 20th November, 2023 and 27th November, 2023 for the said purpose. The further submission is that for such medical condition, the petitioner failed to challenge the impugned order dated 19th February,

2024, hence, therefore, the delay, which has occasioned as a result, should be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. A copy of the IA is served on the State in the Court itself. The objection of learned ASC for the State is noted down.

5. A copy of the discharge summary is at Annexure-3 is referred to by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, while claiming delay condonation. On a reading of the same, the Court finds that the petitioner is a kidney donor and it was donated on 22nd November, 2023 and was discharged from AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 27th November, 2023. In fact, the impugned order at Annexure-1 was passed in the month of February, 2024, whereas, the petitioner was surgically operated in the month of November, 2023. In view of the medical advice upon discharge of the petitioner as made to reveal from Annexure-3, the Court finds that the petitioner was not in a position to file the revision in time challenging the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 and hence, a case is made out for condonation of delay. In other words, recording the objection of learned ASC for the State and in view of the fact that the petitioner was hospitalized at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar for nearly seven days as he donated a kidney and was accordingly advised to avoid movement, the delay whatever has taken place in filing the revision, in the considered view of the Court,

should be accordingly condoned in the interest of justice and accordingly, it is directed.

6. IA is accordingly disposed of with a delay of 276 days in filing the revision is hereby condoned.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 19th February, 2024 passed in connection with M.C. No.13 of 2024 by learned S.D.J.M., Koraput corresponding to Boipariguda P.S. Case No.183 of 2021 further corresponding to TR No.97 of 2021, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the seizure vehicle in his favour was declined.

3. Perused the impugned order dated 19 th February, 2024 at Annexure-1. In fact, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore-Koraput for release of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OD-01Y-8409 and it was at the behest of the petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner but it was declined and disposed of vide Annexure-1 referring to Section

52-A of the NDPA Act and for such other reasons stated therein. It is also concluded by the learned court below that the request for such release of the seizure vehicle should be made before the learned Special court as it has not received any such report regarding seizure of the vehicle from the local PS.

4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and he approached the learned court below demanding release of the same in exercise of the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. but the same was denied. In course of hearing, Mr. Dash, learned counsel cited an order dated 7th February, 2025 in CRLREV No.555 of 2022 to contend that release of the alleged vehicle should be directed in favour of the petitioner. The submission is that this Court in the decision (supra) referred to a recent case of the Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey Vrs. The State of Assam in Special Leave Petition Criminal No.13370 of 2024 and directed release of the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner therein subject to conditions. The further submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel is that there is no bar or any restriction under law against release of the seizure vehicle as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in CRLREV No.503 of 2022 and batch of matters decided and disposed of on 15th January, 2025. So therefore, the contention is that the learned court below failed to consider release of the vehicle said to have been seized in connection with

Boipariguda P.S. Case No.183 dated 8th November, 2021 and therefore, the impugned order as at Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

5. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-1 on the ground that seizure was not reported to the said court instead the same is pending before the learned Special court and rightly, therefore, release of the vehicle was refused. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the learned court below further directed to tag with the original record in TR No.97 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore after release of the alleged vehicle was declined.

6. A serious objection is also received from Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State on the ground that the vehicle in question should not be released, since large quantity of 897 Kgs. 700 grams of Ganja was recovered from it while being intercepted by the local police. In reply and response to the same, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the case, as in the meantime, the chargesheet is filed, a copy of which at Annexure-2 series.

7. Considering the above facts and the plea with reference to Annexure-2 series and as the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused along with others, the Court is of the view that

such recovery of commercial quantity of contraband Ganja should not be a ground denying consideration of release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner. In any case, the law is well settled that a vehicle seized in connection with criminal cases unless required for investigation, enquiry or trial, should be immediately disposed of as any such continued detention is likely to damage it on account of vagaries of the climatic conditions.

8. In the first place, the learned court below ought not to have entertained the MC instead it should have directed the petitioner to approach the learned Special court. On the one hand entertaining the MC and disposing it of after an elaborate hearing with a detailed order and on the other hand to direct same to be tagged with the original record pending with the learned Special court was unjustified. In other words, the petitioner should have been directed to approach the learned Special court directly. It is not understood why the learned court below proceeded to consider the MC and disposed it of vide Annexure-1 and that too, on merit. At this juncture, the Court is also the view that the petitioner, if one again directed to knock the doors of the learned Special court for a fresh hearing, it would cause substantial prejudice to him. But then, a technical issue may arise with regard to the directions if issued by this Court for considering release of the seizure vehicle since the impugned order at Annexure-1 was passed by the

learned court below and not by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore. But, in order to achieve early disposal of the vehicle in question seized in connection with the case, necessary direction is required to be issued to the Court in seisin over the matter.

9. As far as Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is a provision dealing with pre-trial inventory and disposal and as such, not a bar in dealing with any such application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the Court is of the view that the learned court below is not right to hold that the disposal cannot be directed. In fact, there is no provision in the NDPS Act which stands as a bar against release of a seizure vehicle by a court notwithstanding Section 52-A thereof. In batch of matters referred to hereinbefore in the case of Rabindra Kumar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha(CRLREV No.503/2022) being the lead case, this Court had the occasion to conclude that there is no specific bar or any kind of restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for directing delivery of custody of seizure vehicles used and utilized in transporting contraband substances, as an interim measure, pending the criminal cases. A similar view has been expressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRLREV No.555 of 2022 dated 7th February, 2025, a copy of which is produced in Court at the time of hearing. In the said order, this Court has taken a view that the release of the vehicle should be directed to be considered by the

court in seisin over the matter. A reference has also been made therein to a decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vrs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, a judgment considered to be a legal classicus on the point, wherein, it has been held and observed that articles, such as, vehicles to be disposed of at the earliest without delay. In absence of any statutory bar or interdiction under the NDPS Act and as it has been held in Rabindra Kumar Behera (supra) by a Division Bench and since a conclusion has been reached at that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act does not stand as a bar, the Court is of the view that instead of directing the petitioner to approach the learned Special court, it would be just and proper especially in order to avoid delay and any damage to the vehicle in question for it to issue a direction to learned court in seisin over the matter to consider such release of the vehicle subject to scrutiny regarding its ownership imposing suitable conditions as found to be expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, the Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-1 as the same is not legally tenable.

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

11. In the result, the revision stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 19th February, 2024 at Annexure-1 in MC No.13 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction for release of the seizure vehicle bearing

registration No. OD-01Y-8409 in favour of the petitioner subject to proof of its ownership supported by documents and upon imposing conditions as deemed necessary.

12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU