Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1717

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Swaroop Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1786/2022
Decided On : 07-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Vijay Kumar Gaur, Advocate, for the Appellant
Gaurav Singh, PP, for the Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to release seized property under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the potential impact of indefinite seizure.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Release of Seized Vehicle - NDPS Act, 1985, Section 60(3), Section 63(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 452(1)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the release of his seized motorcycle under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The motorcycle was seized in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after narcotic substances were found in the petitioner's possession.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would serve no purpose and would burden the state for its management. It also noted that the trial of the case may take considerable time, and the vehicle could become defunct by the end of the trial if seized indefinitely.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's seized vehicle should be released under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the indefinite seizure of the vehicle would not serve any purpose and would burden the state. It also considered the potential depletion of the vehicle during the trial and the onerous nature of furnishing a bank guarantee, ultimately allowing the release of the vehicle with certain conditions.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to release the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking and two solvent sureties.

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 24.03.2022, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby, petitioner's application under Section 457 of the Code for release of his motorcycle has been rejected.

2. Precisely narrated, the facts appertain are that on 04.01.2022 at around 07:21 am the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O.") intercepted one Swaroop Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were standing on roadside along with the concerned motorcycle (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle") and upon search of the persons, 6.30 grams of smack was found in the petitioner's clothes.

3. The vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer, whereafter, the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle (RJ-13-ES-1231), moved an application under Section 457 of the Code for release of the seized vehicle.

4. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question is not required in the trial and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He submitted that in case the vehicle is not released, it would deplete and its condition would further deteriorate.

5. That apart, learned counsel also argued that on account of indefinite seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner's rights to move freely shall be affected.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that maybe, the vehicle in question might not be used in trial of the case, which is to be tried under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"), but in case, the Court proposes to order release of the vehicle, then, the petitioner may be directed to furnish a bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle so that if the Court ultimately comes to a conclusion that confiscation of the vehicle is warranted, the same be ensured or else at least amount to the extent of its value is secured.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.03.2022, reveals that 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.

9. Before delving into the legality and propriety 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 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document