Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Shankar Sansi - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5236 of 2019
Decided On : 21-08-2019
For the Appellant : Vivek Goyal, Adv.
For the Respondents: F.R. Meena, P.P.
Headnote:
NDPS Act – Section 63 – Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order passed by Special Judge whereby Court has rejected application filed by petitioner for releasing motor-cycle Registration on sapurdagi and has passed an order to initiate confiscation proceedings in relation to aforesaid vehicle –Held, Court can initiate proceedings of confiscation after expiry of one month from date of seizure It is not requirement of law that confiscation proceedings can initiated only after conclusion of trial. As per sub-sec. (2) of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, even when person who committed offence, is not known, Court may order for confiscation of proceedings, vehicle should not be given on interim sapurdagi There is no error in order so as to invoke inherent powers – Petition is dismissed. (Para 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order passed by Special Judge whereby Court has rejected application filed by petitioner for releasing motor-cycle Registration on sapurdagi and has passed an order to initiate confiscation proceedings in relation to aforesaid vehicle.
Findings of the court:
Court can initiate proceedings of confiscation after expiry of one month from date of seizure it is not requirement of law that confiscation proceedings can initiated only after conclusion of trial. As per sub-sec. (2) of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, even when person who committed offence, is not known, Court may order for confiscation of proceedings, vehicle should not be given on interim sapurdagi There is no error in order so as to invoke inherent powers.
Result: Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur whereby Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the motor-cycle Registration No. RJ14-ZH-2190 on sapurdagi and has passed an order to initiate confiscation proceedings in relation to the aforesaid vehicle.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 63 of the NDPS Act, confiscation proceedings can be initiated only after conclusion of the trial.
3. It is contended that trial has not concluded. Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and has further erred in directing that confiscation proceedings be initiated.
4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order as also Section 63 of the NDPS Act.
5. A comprehensive reading of Section 63 of the NDPS Act more particularly sub-sec. (2) and the proviso, makes it clear that the Court can initiate the proceedings of confiscation after the expiry of one month from the dater of seizure. It is not the requirement of law that the confiscation proceedings can be initiated only after the conclusion of trial. As per sub-sec. (2) of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, even when the person who committed the offence, is not known, Court may order for confiscation of the proceedings.
6. Apex Court in "Karnataka State vs. K. Krishnan 2000 Criminal Law General 3971 (S.C)" has held that in NDPS Act Cases, vehicle should not be given on interim sapurdagi. There is no error in the order so as to invoke the inherent powers.
7. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.
