Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1464

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Gaurav Dureja – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4800/2022
Decided On : 08-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
S.R. Godara, Advocate., for the Appellant
Anita Gehlot, P.P., for the Respondents

The court emphasized that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would not serve any purpose and that the owner, who had not been implicated as an accused, should be allowed to reclaim the vehicle.

Headnote:
Confiscation - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Release of Vehicle
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the release of his stolen motorcycle, which was found carrying a contraband substance. The petitioner was not named as an accused in the case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would serve no purpose and would burden the state. It also noted that the petitioner was the owner of the stolen vehicle and had not been implicated as an accused. The court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release the vehicle to the petitioner on certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code, considering the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of Section 60(3) and 63(1) of the NDPS Act, which state the liability of confiscation of vehicles used to carry narcotic drugs and the procedure for making confiscations. The court also referred to Section 452(1) of the Code, which deals with the disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The trial court was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "The Code") the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.04.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby, petitioner's application under Section 457 of the Code for release of his motorcycle (Hero HF Deluxe, Registration No. RJ 13 SR 2902) has been rejected.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that after investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet, however, the petitioner has not been named as accused in this case.

3. Learned counsel submits that the vehicle in question was stolen from him on 07.09.2021 for which he got a theft report registered as daily diary report No. 633/17.09.2021 in Police Station Sri Vijanagar and the contraband substance was recovered from such vehicle on 13.11.2021.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, reveals that the Court below has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

6. Before delving into the accuracy of the said order it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case, namely, sections 60 (3) and 63 (1) of the NDPS Act and section 452 (1) of the Code. Section 60 (3) of the NDPS reads as under:

"60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.-

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use."

Section 63 (1) of the NDPS Act reads as under:

"63. Procedure in making confiscations.- (1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly."

Section 452 (1) of the Code reads as under:

"452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.-(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence."

7. A conjoined reading of the above-quoted provisions of NDPS Act and the Code reveals the following:

(i) Any vehicle used to carry any narcotic drug/psychotropic substance/controlled substances/any article liable to confiscation under section 60(1) and 60(2), shall be liable to confiscation;

(ii) Upon conclusion of the trial of the accused, the Court must decide if such vehicle is liable to confiscation;

(iii) If such vehicle is liable to confiscation the Court shall pass an order for confiscation;

(iv) The Court may not pass an order for confiscation if the owner of the vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

8. In the facts of the present case, this Court feels that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle will not serve any purpose. Per contra allowing an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would firstly create additional burden on the Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document