Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Ganesha Ram - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2849 of 2017
Decided On : 01-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Gill
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit
The court's power to release a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under Section 451 CrPC is not restricted solely on that basis, and the release should be ordered expeditiously to prevent the owner from suffering and the police from having to keep the article in safe custody.
Headnote:
NDPS ACT - SECTION 8/15,25,29 - SECTION 451 CRPC - ORDER FOR CUSTODY AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY PENDING TRIAL - COURT'S POWER TO RELEASE VEHICLE USED IN COMMISSION OF OFFENCE ON SUPARDAGINAMA - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 451 CRPC - GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSAL OF SEIZED ARTICLES - VEHICLE TO BE RELEASED ON FURNISHING SOLVENT SECURITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought release of a pick-up van seized in connection with an NDPS Act case, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing his application under Section 451 CrPC. He relied on a precedent where the Supreme Court held that the power under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously to prevent the owner from suffering and the police from having to keep the article in safe custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the legislative intent of Section 451 CrPC includes the release of vehicles used in the commission of offences, and that the release should not be restricted solely on that basis. It also referred to the Supreme Court precedent, which laid down a procedure for the disposal of seized articles, including vehicles.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has the power to release a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under Section 451 CrPC? 2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for release of the vehicle?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 451 CrPC empowers the court to make orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial, including property used in the commission of an offence. 2. The Supreme Court has held that the power under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously to prevent the owner from suffering and the police from having to keep the article in safe custody. 3. The court should pass appropriate orders immediately and the articles should not be kept for a long time at the police station.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the petitioner on supardaginama upon furnishing solvent security.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by RHJS Additional Sessions Judge Bhadra Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.40/2017 whereby application under section 451 of Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner in Session Case No.25/2016 arising out of FIR No.153/15, P.S. Gogamedi to release pick up van RJ 31GA1663 on Supardiganama has been dismissed, to set aside the same offence under Section 8/15,25,29 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Satvinder Singh v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal misc. Petition No. 1188/2017) decided on 16.05.2017.
3. This Court on 16.05.2017 has passed the following order in Satvider Singh v. State (Supra):-
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh in connection with FIR No.34/2017 Police Station Dhamotar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited argument that under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 the domain of the learned court would be to order for custody and disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases. Furthermore, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 in Explanation, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the word "property" includes any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, relevant portion of which is as follows:-
"4. Learned counsel further referred to the relevant sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads thus-
"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry of trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the property custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "property" includes
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property-
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."
5. Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as-
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise
