SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1488

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 961 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. RJ Punia, for the Appellant
Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP, for the Respondent.

The expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for custody and disposal of seized property pending trial.

Headnote:

N.D.P.S. Act - Custody of Seized Property - Sections 8/21 & 30 of N.D.P.S. Act - Section 451 Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought release of mobile & Rs.16,000/- seized in connection with an N.D.P.S. Act case. The trial court refused to release the items.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the revision petition, directing the trial court to release the mobile on supardaginama in favor of the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.10,000.

Issues: The issue revolved around the custody and disposal of seized property pending trial, as per Section 451 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and previous orders, emphasizing the expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to prevent suffering of the owner and unnecessary custody of the property.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to release the mobile on supardaginama in favor of the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.10,000.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The case deals with expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for custody and disposal of seized property pending trial in NDPS Act cases (!) (!) . - The court allowed the revision, directing release of the mobile on supardaginama upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,000, after noting investigation completion and charge-sheet filed (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that Section 451 Cr.P.C. enables orders for custody, sale, or disposal of property pending inquiry or trial, and that property may include items used in offence or produced before the court (!) (!) (!) . - It references the need to avoid unnecessary custody and suffering to the owner and to proceed promptly with proper panchnama, bond, security, and possible photographic evidence before returning property to complainant or rightful owner (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision cites Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (SC) to support expeditious and judicious exercise of 451 Cr.P.C. powers and discusses handling of valuable articles, currencies, and vehicles, including possible handover on bond and bank locker custody, or auction if unclaimed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court was required to verify ownership of the mobile before releasing it (!) . - The revision petition was allowed with directions to release the mobile on supardaginama on usual conditions and bank guarantee of Rs. 10,000; prior orders of similar Rajasthan cases are referenced (Pannaram Jat, Amra) (!) .

How to exercise section 451 Cr.P.C. powers for custody and disposal of seized property pending trial?

What is the scope of "property" under Section 451 Cr.P.C. as interpreted in NDPS cases?

What is the proper procedure and conditions for releasing seized mobile/valuables on supardaginama with a bank guarantee?


ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition praying that the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases (ADJ No.1), Barmer in Sessions Case No.18/2022, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release mobile & Rs.16,000/- to the petitioner. The said articles were seized in connection with FIR No.125/2022 registered at P.S. Dhorimana, District Barmer for the offence under Sections 8/21 & 30 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited argument that under Section 451 Cr. P.C., 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. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. 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, 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 disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay to dispose of the same.

    6. It is submitted that despite wide powers, proper orders are not passed by the Courts. It is also pointed out that in the State of Gujarat there is Gujarat Police Manual for disposal and custody of such articles. As per the Manual also, various circulars are issued for maintenance of proper registers for keeping the muddamal articles in safe custody.

    7. In our view, the powe

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top