Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 4096 of 2022

Ranjan Digal

….

Petitioner

Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha

….

Opposite Party

Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

17.01.2023

01.

1.

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel for the State

2.

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the

petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 2^nd November, 2022

under Annexure-2 passed in Crl. M.C. No.30 of 2022 by the

learned Special Judge, Phulbani, whereby, an application under

Section 457 Cr.P.C. was rejected for being not maintainable.

3.

Perused the copy of the FIR at Anneuxre-1 and certified

copy of the impugned order dated 2^nd November, 2022 as at

Annexure-2.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner though is an accused but he happens to be the owner of

the vehicle in question, which is shown to have been seized in

connection with Phiringia P.S. Case No.11 dated 11^th January, 2022

and in such capacity, he moved the learned Special Court for release

of the same in his favour, however, it was rejected on the ground

Page 2 of 4

that the disposal has to be in terms of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there

is no bar for disposal under the NDPS Act, an application under

Section 457 Cr.P.C was moved before the learned Special Court

which should have been entertained and necessary orders was

required to be passed therein but then, it was rejected on technical

ground. Hence, it is submitted that necessary orders to be passed for

immediate release of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-

02-AH-2600 involved in connection with C.T. Case No.05 of 2022

corresponding to Phiringia P.S. Case No.11 of 2022 registered under

Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

5.

Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State on the other

hand submits that such rejection of the application under Section

457 Cr.P.C. is on technical ground and if the Court is inclined, it

may issue a direction to the learned Special Court for

reconsideration of the same if at all it is held that there is no

application of Section 52-A of NDPS Act to the present facts and

circumstances of the case.

6.

On a bare reading of Annexure-2, the Court finds that the

alleged vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-02-AH-2600 was seized

for being involved in transportation of 25 kg and 300 grams of

contraband Ganja. It is further made to appear that the petitioner

being an accused but claiming himself to be the owner of the said

vehicle approached the learned Special Court for its release in terms

of Section 457 Cr.P.C. however it was disposed of as not being

maintainable with reference to Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

7.

In so far as Section 52-A of NDPS Act is concerned, it is a

provision with regard to disposal of seized contraband drugs and

psychotropic substances besides other articles including conveyances

referring to which the learned Special court concluded that the

application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In fact

the said procedure is prescribed for disposal of seized items after an

Page 3 of 4

inventory conducted. A detailed procedure is specified in Section

52-A of NDPS Act as to what manner such disposal is to be ensured.

However, in so far as an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is

concerned, if it is moved either by the owner of a vehicle or its

rightful claimant, the same shall have to be entertained by the court

in seisin over the matter and it cannot be denied or disposed of on

the ground that it shall have to be as per Section 52-A of NDPS Act.

As such there is no bar for the court to entertain a request under

Section 457 Cr.P.C. I