Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Kapur Ganjhu – Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand – Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No.2928 of 2022
Decided on 5.2.2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 451 and 482 – Rejection of prayer for release of Motorcycle – Adjudication of ownership of property in not a sine-qua-non for passing order under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure by criminal court in any inquiry or trial for proper custody of such property; pending conclusion of inquiry or trial – In case, there are two claimants of a property, some sought of adjudication may arise for criminal court for release of seized property in favour of either or any of them – As it is not a necessity for a criminal court to record evidence, for entrusting seized property for proper custody, if need so arises, criminal court has power to change its decision and entrust custody of property to someone else if person to whom custody of such property has been entrusted expressed his inability or for any other reason – It cannot be said that all orders passed under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure whether it involves any adjudication of any manner regarding ownership or not substantially affects right of party.(Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 451 and 482 – Rejection of prayer for release of Motorcycle – Certificate of officer-in-charge of a police station is not a sine-qua-non for court to pass an order for release of a seized property produced before it in a criminal case – Similarly, whether or not report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been received is not also may not be a relevant consideration for deciding to release vehicle seized in connection with a case – Petitioner given liberty to file fresh application for release of vehicle.(Paras 20 to 23)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Alternative remedy – Mere availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to disentitle relief under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure – Criminal miscellaneous petition is not to be dismissed as non-maintainable.(Paras 18 and 19)
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
By the Court:—
Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1256 of 2021 arising out of Bashistanagar P.S. Case No.58 of 2021, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 192 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Chatra has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-13E-5720 which was seized in connection with the said case.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the police on secret information came to know that the accused persons of the case are travelling in a motorcycle loaded with opium; established an ambush. On seeing the seized motorcycle, police stopped it. The three riders of the motorcycles on seeing the police team parked the motorcycles and fled away. The two motorcycles were apprehended by police with two sacks of opium loaded upon the same and also the four accused persons of the case.
4. The learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chatra rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce up to date and valid insurance paper of the said seized Honda motorcycle, supplementary investigation is still pending for report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi and in the report of the officer-in-charge of Bashistanagar, the police has not clearly expressed non-necessity of the vehicle in course of further investigation and rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mangan Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1622 of 2020 dated 14.09.2021 has held that the order rejecting the release of the vehicle in question is interlocutory in nature which cannot be subject matter of revision and on the basis of such observation of the coordinate Bench, the petitioner though earlier filed criminal revision no. 319 of 2022 but filed an interlocutory application no.5608 of 2022 and vide order dated 17.08.2022 in the said interlocutory application, the coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the interlocutory application and permitted the conversion of the criminal revision into criminal miscellaneous petition. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-3 of this criminal miscellaneous petition at page no. 32, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Honda Shine motorcycle has been having a valid insurance from 02.03.2022 (08:03:05) hrs. to 01.03.2023 Midnight hence, it is submitted that though on 28.02.2022, there was no valid insurance policy but subsequently, the petitioner has obtained the insurance policy for the period 02.03.2022 (08:03:05) hrs. to 01.03.2023 Midnight. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the insurance policy has even expired and the petitioner undertakes to obtain a fresh insurance policy in respect of the motorcycle in question. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 22.08.2022 be quashed and the petitioner be given the liberty to file a fresh application annexing therewith a valid insurance policy in respect of the motorcycle in question.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the order dated 28.02.2022 being not an interlocutory order, this criminal miscellaneous petition is not maintainable. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Hussain vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC OnLine AP 1914, paragraph nos.10, 11 and 12 of which reads as under:—
“10. At para.15 of the aforesaid Madras High Court judgment, it is held as follows:
“15. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent
(1) Release of confiscated Motorcycle – Certificate of officer-in-charge of a police station is not a sine-qua-non for court to pass an order for release of a seized property produced before it in a ....
Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 allows for the release of a vehicle involved in an accident upon furnishing sufficient security, even if the vehicle is not insured.
Uninsured vehicles involved in accidents cannot be released without sufficient security to cover potential compensation claims, protecting victim rights.
The court acknowledged that vehicles seized in NDPS cases should not be retained indefinitely, establishing guidelines for interim release to prevent deterioration and ensure lawful ownership.
The court established that while the statutory burden on the owner to save the seized conveyance from confiscation had not been discharged, the release on superdari of the impounded vehicle was maint....
The main legal point established is that under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., a court may allow the interim release of a seized vehicle with specific conditions, considering the practical problems faced by ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
