Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 649 (ORI)

Balakrushna Dash v. State of Orissa

2003-11-07

PRADIP MOHANTY

body2003
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur, in G.R. Case No. 761 of 2003 in an application u/s. 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-Q-6804 Maruti Mini Van. The vehicle in question was seized on 1.8.2003 by the Badachana Police in connection with the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘Act’). The petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur for interim release of the seized vehicle in question on the ground that the petitioner had abso¬lutely no knowledge about the carrying of the puppy-husk and he had instructed the driver of the vehicle not to carry any objec¬tionable materials in the vehicle. He further stated in his peti¬tion that from the date of seizure the car is lying at the police station being exposed to the sun and the rain and thereby deteri¬orating the condition day to day. 3. After hearing the petitioner and the prosecution, the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, by his order dated 03.09.2003, rejected the said application on the ground that it is not appropriate to release the seized vehicle in the zima of the accused-petitioner on interim custody since the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act. 4. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the vehicle is kept at the police station for a long period by not adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure which creates difficulty for keeping the vehicle in safe custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, (i) while the Court considering the application for interim release of the vehicle the Court should look into the fact that the owner of the vehicle would not su¬ffer, and (ii) it is the duty of the police to keep the seized vehicle in safe custody and it should not be damaged or deteri¬orated in condition. Mr. Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and stated that since the vehicle is involved in the N.D.P.S. Act it is liable to be confiscated to the State. Therefore, in no circumstance the vehicle can be released in favour of the owner. He also argued that there is no provision in the Act for interim release of the vehicle since it is a special Act. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner as the owner had, in his active knowledge, allowed the driver to trans¬port contraband articles in the said vehicle. Therefore, the learned Addl.District Judge-cum-Special Judge has rightly reject¬ed the application. 5. This Court perused the lower Court records and the case diary. The fact of seizure was duly intimated to the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur and admittedly the vehicle is lying at the police station which is exposed to the sun and the rain from the date of seizure. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court feels, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station for a long period. No fruitful purpose can be served by detaining the vehi¬cle as for such prolonged detention the condition of the vehicle is likely to be deteriorated day to day and thereby the cost of the vehicle will be affected. In view of the above finding, this Court directs the trial Court for interim release of the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner on his furnishing bond to produce the same as and when required, and further fur¬nishing cash security of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thou¬sand) and property security to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh). This Court further directs that before handing over possession of the seized vehicle, appropriate photographs of the vehicle in question and the photographs of the registered owner should be taken and with a further bond to keep the vehicle in running condition. With this direction, the criminal revision is disposed of. Crl. Revision disposed of.