[2025:RJ-JD:38489]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 280/2023

1. Firoz Shah S/o Nazir Shah, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gotharsi Ps Hathunia Dist. Pratapgarh Raj. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)

2. Farooq Shah S/o Naru Shah, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gotharsi Ps Hathunia Dist. Pratapgarh Raj. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 16/07/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 29/08/2025 REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:-

1. The matter comes upon an application preferred by the appellant seeking release of the Motorcycle Hero Splender bearing Registration No.RJ35-SH8254,, which was seized by the police in connection with the alleged offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.07.2020, the SHO, PS Hathunia alongwith his team intercepted a Motorcycle Hero Splender bearing Registration No.RJ35-SH8254, driven by the appellant. Upon search, three plastic sacks containing 103 kilograms of poppy husk were allegedly recovered from the said vehicle. Consequent to seizure, both the contraband and the vehicle were taken into custody.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle is a valuable property; it has been lying unattended in the open yard of the police station for nearly three years and has deteriorated in condition. The appellant, being the registered owner, has undertaken to produce the vehicle before the court whenever required. It is urged that if the vehicle is allowed to lie in police custody, it would lose its utility and economic worth, which would serve neither the purpose of justice nor the ends of the law.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, contending that the vehicle being involved in commission of the offence is liable to be confiscated, and hence, should not be released.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material as made available.

5.1. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that upon culmination of trial proceedings, the learned trial court, by judgment dated 21.01.2023, convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and to undergo 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and in default to further undergo 15 months RI. Against this conviction, the appellant preferred the present appeal, which stands duly admitted before this Court. Alongside the appeal, an application for suspension of sentence being SB Criminal 2^nd Suspension of Sentence No.1075/2024 was also filed, and vide order dated 21.10.2024, the appellant’s sentence has been suspended during pendency of appeal.

5.2. The appellant now seeks release of the seized vehicle on the ground that he is the registered and undisputed owner, that no rival claim has ever been asserted, and that the vehicle has since remained idle in the open premises of the police station, exposed to natural decay, thereby resulting in imminent and irretrievable loss of its economic value.

6. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 obligates courts to ensure due and timely disposal of property seized during trial. Section 452 Cr.P.C. mandates that upon conclusion of a criminal trial, the court must pass a clear order regarding disposal of property produced before it, whether by way of destruction, confiscation, or delivery to the rightful claimant.

Section 452 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced as under:-

452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

(1)When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document