ORDER

1. This revision petition under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajgarh rejecting the petitioner’s application for Supurdgi of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts are that Bajaj Pulser motorcycle No.MP42MN5718, Engine No. DHYRJB57432, Chassis No.MD2A11CYOJRB34168 was seized in connection with the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act in Crime No.182/19 registered in Police Station Limachouhan, District Rajgarh. The petitioner had filed the application for giving the said motorcycle on Supurdgi on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. The trial Court had rejected the application for Supurdgi on the ground that the motorcycle was used for transportation of the contraband item and it is liable to be confiscated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of seizure of the contraband item, the petitioner was standing near the motorcycle and the seizure was made from the bag and the motorcycle was not used for transporting the contraband item. He further submits that the motorcycle is standing in open and will decay and that there is no bar of interim custody of the vehicle in the NDPS case.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed theapplication and has supported the impugned order.

5. 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 v. 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. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.”

6. It has further been observed in para 10 of the judgment that to avoid the loss or destruction of the seized property, the power u/S.451 of the Cr.P.C should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.

7. Sec.60 of the NDPS Act 1985 deals with the liability of illicit drug, substance, plant, article and conveyance to confiscation. Sub-section (3) of Sec.60 provides for confiscation of the animal or conveyance used in transporting the contraband substance. Similarly Sec.61 deals with confiscation of goods used for concealing illicit drug or substances. No provision has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents which bars release of the conveyance or other items seized along with the contraband substances pending the trial.

8. Th