Rajasthan High Court
Kayyum Son Of Late Suleman vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:19922]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4666/2023
Kayyum Son Of Late Suleman, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House
No. 43, Ajanta Vihar, Behind Of Kachara Depot, Galtagate, Police
Station Galtagate, Jaipur At Present Rent-Holder House No. 15,
Ajanta Vihar, Behind Of Kachara Depot, Galtagate, Police Station
Galtagate, Jaipur. (Regd. Power Of Attorney Holder Of Vehicle
Motorcycle No. Rj-14-Jc-2320 Chassis No. Mblhar089J4H01790
And Engine No. Ha10Agj4H03904)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Zubeir
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
24/08/2023
By way of filing of the instant miscellaneous petition,
challenge has been made to the order dated 17.07.2023 passed
by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal
Misc. Application No.275/2023 arising out of FIR No.189/23
registered at PS Transport Nagar, Jaipur for offences under
Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act whereby the prayer made
by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question (motorcycle)
bearing registration No. RJ 14 JC 2320 on supurdagi has been
declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the power of attorney-holder of the registered owner of the
vehicle in question which has been seized by the Police Officers in
[2023:RJ-JP:19922] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4666/2023]
connection with the aforesaid FIR. The power of attorney
executed by the owner Mohd. Saddam in favour of the petitioner
Kayyum is annexed with this petition. Counsel submits that the
petitioner being the power of attorney holder of the registered
owner of the vehicle in question, is the person best entitled to get
back the possession of the seized property. It is also submitted
that there is no other person claiming supurdagi of the same. He
contends that the learned trial court rejected the application of the
petitioner on the ground that the seized vehicle is liable to be
confiscated in view of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. However,
that cannot be a sole ground to deny custody to the petitioner. He
submits that the vehicle in question is presently stationed unused
at the police station and soon it would become junk. He placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
AIR 2003 SC 638.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the criminal
miscellaneous petition.
The purport of the case law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the article
should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police
should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. Apart
from this, the seized vehicles which in a wider sense, are national
property, would not be allowed to become junk day by day. It has
been further laid down in the aforecited case law that while giving
custody of the article, the article should be released on proper
security.
[2023:RJ-JP:19922] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4666/2023]
Furthermore, in the aforecited precedent law, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the court should pass appropriate orders
immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at
the police station, and the procedure for disposal of the seized
valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and
narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforecited case
law, the present misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act
Cases Jaipur-I, in Criminal Misc. Application No.275/2023 is
quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to
release the vehicle in question (motorcycle) bearing registration
No.RJ 14 JC 2320 to the petitioner provided he furnishes a
Supurdaginama of Rs. 50,000/- and surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall furnish an
undertaking to the court below that he shall not sell, transfer or
alienate the vehicle in question without permission of the court
and produce the same before the court below as and when called
upon to do so. It is also made clear that he shall not use the
vehicle for any illegal and unlawful purpose in future.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/673
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
