The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C for custody and disposal of property pending trial, as well as the absence of a provision restricting the power of the trial court to release seized vehicles in interim custody under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, J. - The Revision Petition u/S.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 16/3/2020 passed in MJCR/10120/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Indore) rejecting the petitioner's application u/Ss.451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C for supurdgi of 648 bags and boxes of fertilizer along with original bilty papers.

2. The brief facts are that on the basis of the information received by the Narcotic Cell, Indore container No. TS.07.UG.3014 was intercepted in which 55 kg of ganja stored in three boxes was found from the possession of accused Lakhan Kushwaha, Nihalsingh and Irfan. The said truck was also transporting 648 bags of fertilizer (bags and boxes of urea fertilizer) and they were also seized.

3. The applicant had filed the application before the court below with the plea that the applicant is a registered transport company and it had taken the container No. TS.07.UG.3014 on rent through a broker for the purpose of transporting 314 bags and 334 boxes of fertilizer from the godown of Fertis India P. Ltd to the authorised trader at Indore vide bilty No.61502 dated 18/2/2020 in the container through the driver from Nagole to Indore. Further plea was raised that the applicant has no connection with the seized contraband item and that the applicant is entitled to release of the seized fertilizer which has wrongly been seized along with the contraband item.

4. The court below has rejected the application on the ground that the fertiliser has been seized along with the contraband item and investigation is in progress and the offence is serious in nature, therefore, it cannot be relieved.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the accused persons who were transporting the contraband item have been arrested and that the applicant is a transport company which was validly transporting the fertiliser in a rented container on the basis of valid bilty having no connection with the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is entitled for interim custody of the fertiliser. He further submits that the fertiliser is subject to natural decay and since it has been kept in open in the rainy season, therefore, in every likelihood it would destroy. He submits that the fertiliser is worth about 16 lakhs and the applicant is ready to secure the said amount.

6. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application and has submitted that the fertiliser has been seized along with the contraband item, therefore, it cannot be released.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C empowers the court to pass appropriate orders for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the scope of Sec.451 in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat with C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that:-

"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 powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3.