Rajasthan High Court
Sujan S/O Rodu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21376) on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:21376]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2694/2024
Sujan S/o Rodu, Resident Of Peepliya Nagga Police Station Ratlai
District Jhalawar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
06/05/2024
By way of instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 16.09.2023
passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases Jhalawar (Raj.) in Criminal
Misc. Application No.208/2023 (CIS No.84/2023) arising out of FIR
No.208/2023 registered at PS Jhalawar Sadar, District Jhalawar for
the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the
NDPS Act whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing
the vehicle in question (motor-cycle) bearing registration No.
RJ17-CS-2039 on supurdagi has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the registered owner of the vehicle in question which has been
seized by the Police Officers in connection with the aforesaid FIR.
Counsel submits that the petitioner being 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
[2024:RJ-JP:21376] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2694/2024]
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.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:21376] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2694/2024]
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 16.09.2023 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases Jhalawar
(Raj.) in Criminal Misc. Application No.208/2023 (CIS No.84/2023)
is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed
to release the vehicle in question (motor-cycle) bearing
registration No. RJ17-CS-2039 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
GAUTAM JAIN /77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
