Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 247
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Rajani Dubey, J
Vimlesh Rathore @ Kallu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 38 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.R. Patankar
For the Respondents: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey
The court ruled that seized vehicles should be released post-acquittal, ensuring safeguards against deterioration and potential misuse.
Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(1) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 452 - Application for release of seized vehicle - Appellant acquitted of charges - Special Judge's rejection of application for release on supurdnama questioned - Court directed release of vehicle subject to conditions to prevent deterioration. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) Seized property - Principles governing release of seized vehicles - Conditions outlined for proper handling and preventing deterioration of articles in custody. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was acquitted of serious charges related to illegal activities and sought release of his vehicle seized in connection to the case. Trial Court denied the request leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Vehicle must be returned to prevent decay; conditions for return laid out to secure property for potential future needs.
Issues: The continuing custody of the vehicle and ensuring no loss of evidence or misappropriation should the appellant prove ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of expedient decisions regarding seized property, following Supreme Court guidelines on the matter, ensuring that such decisions do not lead to unnecessary loss or damage.
Result: Present appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case focus on the appellant's acquittal and request for vehicle release. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal principles governing the release of seized property. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's decision to release vehicle with conditions laid out. (Para 10 , 11) |
on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08.04.2024
1. Heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal.
2. On due consideration, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 21 (1) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 is directed against the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, NIA Act / Schedule Offences Revenue District Sukma and Bijapur, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Case No. 23/2022, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Case of the prosecution, if brief, is that the appellant along with two other persons namely Ravi Kumar Kunjam and Kadti Budru were arrested on 25.04.2022 and were tried for offences under Sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 8(3)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Protection Act and Section 17, 18 of the Unlawful activities Prevention Act on the allegation that on 24.04.2022 at about 4 pm near school para, the accused along with other persons wanted to do illegal activities and were members of Bhartiya Communist Party. After trial, all the three accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court under the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 27.06.2003. Thereafter, the appellant Vimlesh Rathore moved an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for getting the Mahindra Tractor bearing No. CG-18L-4844 and Trolley bearing No. CG-19BF-3234 on Supurdnama and vide impugned order dated 12.09.2023 the Special Judge has dismissed the application for releasing the tractor and trolley on supurdnama. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Special Judge ought to have appreciated that the present appellant along with other two accused persons were acquitted of the offences and as such, ought to have allowed the application for releasing the tractor trolley on supurdnama. The seized tractor trolley is standing in the police station since 25.04.2022 without any care and maintenance and the same is getting deteriorated day by day.
Hence, the same may be handed over to the appellant on supurdnama.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the appeal along with the annexures annexed in this case.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in paragraphs 7 & 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-
- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC 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 proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, 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 property in detail;
- and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance o
