Kundanlal vs State of M. P. - 1987 Supreme(MP) 455

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : A. N. Pradhan
For the Respondent: Solanki

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 451 and 452 – provisions under – are different – interim custody of property likely to be confiscated may be given.
       (2) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – S. 60 (3) – property liable to be confiscated under – may be given to owner as interim custody.
        Short Note
       1. Circumstances giving rise to the application are these. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is the owner of the car bearing registration number R.J.O. 4016. On 7 – 10 – 86 when it was being driven by the petitioner's driver Shyamsingh, opium weighing 112.5 kilograms was found in the car. The opium and the car were both seized by the police.
       2. The petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle stating that he had no knowledge of the commission of the crime. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the crime is of a serious nature. Revision petition filed against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed as already stated.
       Held: In deciding the revision petition in the manner aforesaid. the learned Additional Sessions Judge has distinguished the decision in Palvinder Singh's case [1986 (II) M.P.W.N. 170] by stating that it relates to the Opium Act and the relevant provision in Section 60 (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') are more stringent.
       3. The provision reads thus –
       "Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any article liable to confiscation under subsection (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".
       4. The decision in State of M. P. v. Azad Bharat F. Co. & another (1967 J. L. J. 153) which relates to Opium Act may also be usefully perused.
       5. The Court has the discretionary jurisdiction to pass orders regarding the disposal of seized property. The discretion in the matter has to be judicially exercised. The liability of the property to confiscation does not take away the Court's jurisdiction in the matter or lim its discretion. In this connection, the decision in State of M. P. v. Narayan Singh (1971 J.L.J. 803) is pertinent.
       6. The provision in Section 60 (3) of the Act no doubt casts the burden on the owner to prove that the vehicle is not liable to confiscation but, as already stated, the Court has the discretion to pass order even in relation to property liable to confiscation.
       7. It may be pointed out that Section 451 of the Code which provides for interim custody pending trial is worded differently from Section 452 which provides for order for disposal of property at the conclusion of trial. Unlike for the former section, the latter one speaks of delivery of the property to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. Further, under Section 452 of the Code the order regarding delivery of property to such person may be with or without the condition that he executes a bond engaging to restore such property to the Court in case the order is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
       8. I am informed that the case is fixed for charge in February, 1988.
       9. On a careful consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that in view of the fact that the case is not likely to be disposed of at an early date, it is proper that the Court intervens in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and passes suitable orders.
       10. In the result, the application under Section 482 of the Code is allowed.
       11. It is ordered that the vehicle in question shall he handed over to the petitioner on Supratnama on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ – (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Jhabua engaging to restore the same to the Court as and when ordered. 1986 (II) MPWN 170, 1971 JLJ 863 and 1967 JLJ 153 (SC) relied on. Petition allowed.