The expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 CrPC for releasing seized vehicles and preventing their decay in custody.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the District Collector in entertaining the application for Supurdnama filed by the petitioner seeking custody of his car bearing registration no. C.G.04N.L.4559 i.e. Maruti Ertiga.

2. The said vehicle was seized by the State Authorities under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. As on the date of incident i.e. 28.08.2021, the vehicle was said to have been carrying 126 bulk litter of liquor. The vehicle was being driven by Awinash Wadhwa and Rahul Wadhwa. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and is said to have handed over the said vehicle to Awinash Wadhawa and Rahul Wadhwa for some private personal purpose when the incident occurred. The Supurdnama application which the petitioner had moved before the JMFC, stood rejected on 08.09.2021. The rejection was on the ground of the specific bar provided under the Act on account of the confiscation proceedings having been initiated. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an appropriate application before the District Collector in the confiscation proceedings who has refused to entertain the said application for grant of Supurdnama vide its order dated 18.01.2021 and have proceeded further on the confiscation aspect and notice has been issued to the registered owner i.e. the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is more than five months that the vehicle is in custody of respondent-authorities and is lying in the open and there is all possibility that the vehicle to get damaged if not used. He further submits that the vehicle is no longer required for the respondents either in the confiscation case or for the matter of the trial under the Excise Act. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to make available the said vehicle to the respondents as and when required and ordered by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002(10) SCC 283.

5. The State Counsel opposing the petition submits that the confiscation proceedings since has already been initiated and there being a bar from the Courts taking cognizance on such matters pending the confiscation proceedings, the order cannot be said to be bad in any manner, nor can it be said to be contrary to law. Thus prayed for rejection of the present writ petition.

6. Undisputedly, the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The petitioner does not seem to be an accused in the said case. The accused seems to be Awinash Wadhwa and Rahul Wadhwa, who were present in the vehicle at the time of incident. The investigation part is already complete and it is more than five months that the vehicle is in custody of the respondents. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle as of now under the custody of the respondents, particularly when the petitioner undertakes to make available the vehicle as and when required by the respondent-authorities.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283, in paragraphs 7 and 17 has laid down the guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the co