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

2021 Supreme(Ori) 304

SAVITRI RATHO
Ramakrushna Panda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. K.K. Nayak, A.S.C., for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that Cr.P.C. provisions for interim custody are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. (!) - The mobile phone OPPO Reno 2F bearing IMEI 860527040855059 and 860527040855042 is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner subject to specified conditions. (!) - Conditions for release include: production of original ownership documents; undertaking not to claim prejudice if phone is not produced at trial; undertaking to produce the phone when required; furnishing surety of Rs 10,000; and not transferring ownership post-release. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case involved seizure of three bags of ganja (32.63 kg) and mobile phones used in commission of the offence under NDPS Act; the phone was seized from accused persons. (!) - The order sets aside the lower court's rejection of release and directs interim release of the phone pending trial. (!)

How to determine interim custody release of a mobile phone seized in NDPS case under Cr.P.C. provisions?

What is the conflict or consistency between Cr.P.C. interim custody provisions (Sections 451/457) and NDPS Act provisions (Sections 60/63/51) in relation to release of conveyances or property?

What are the conditions for the release of the OPPO Reno 2F mobile phone to the petitioner pending trial?


ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2021 arising out of T.R. No.49 of 2021 (Special G.R. Case No.126 of 2020) pending before the learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Puri rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refusing to release the OPPO Reno 2F Mobile Phone bearing IMEI (1) No.860527040855059 and (2) 860527040855042 registered in his name which had been seized in Special G.R. Case No.126 of 2020 registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the primary ground that the phone was seized from the accused persons alongwith the contraband articles.

3. The prosecution in brief is that on 15.10.2020 at about 9.00 a.m. while the S.I. of Police of Town Police Station , along with his staff were conducting patrolling duty , they raided the house of the acc

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top