Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1201 (JHR)

Ram Singar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P. K. Appu and A. P. P. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for release of Scorpio vehicle No. DL 8CJ 6807 as also cash of Rs. 1,23,620/- which was allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner and from the vehicle in connection with Thethai Tangar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 95 of 2013 (Special Case No. 01 of 2013). 3. By virtue of an amendment application preferred by the petitioner contained in I.A. No. 7642 of 2016 having been allowed by this Court on 27-2-2017 the petitioner has also challenged the order, dated 14-8-2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Simdega in Confiscation Case No. 06 2013-2014 whereby and where under the Scorpio vehicle as well as the cash amounting to Rs. 1,34,950/- has been confiscated in terms of Section 60 of the NDPS Act. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case and in terms of Section 60 of the NDPS Act the confiscating authority was precluded from passing any order with respect to the confiscation of the vehicle or any material prior to discharge or acquittal or conviction of an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 30-6-2015 whereas the order was passed by the confiscating authority on 14-8-2014 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the confiscation itself being bad the vehicle as well as the cash be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. The First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that on checking of vehicles by the raiding party the Scorpio Vehicle belonging to the petitioner was checked and the same was found to be carrying cannabis and a total quantity of 95 kg. cannabis was recovered. It was also alleged that the petitioner was apprehended and on search being made on his vehicle 130 Kg. of cannabis was recovered and some amount in cash was also recovered. 7. Based on the aforesaid allegation Thethai Tangar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2013 was instituted. cannabis was recovered. It was also alleged that the petitioner was apprehended and on search being made on his vehicle 130 Kg. of cannabis was recovered and some amount in cash was also recovered. 7. Based on the aforesaid allegation Thethai Tangar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2013 was instituted. Having found the allegation to be true charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and trial proceeded. After conclusion of trial since the complicity of the petitioner could not be found he was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Simdega vide judgment, dated 30-6-2015. However, prior to passing of the judgment of acquittal the confiscating authority being the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Simdega has already passed an order on 14-8-2014 confiscating the Scorpio vehicle as well as an amount of Rs. 1,34,950/-. The petitioner after his acquittal had moved an application for release of vehicle as well as cash which however was rejected by the learned Special Judge, Simdega on 11-9-2015. The impediment in considering the release application by the learned Special Judge, Simdega was the order passed by the confiscating authority earlier to the passing of the judgment of acquittal and it has been clearly held in the order dated 11-9-2015 that the order passed by the confiscating authority was not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 60 of the NDPS Act which relates to the procedure in making confiscation and sub-section (1) of Section 63 reveals that a confiscation of any article seized can be decided only when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the case of Subash Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, reported in (sic) 2009 (2) OLR 946 : 2010 Cri LJ (NOC) 716 (Ori) . A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 63 reveals that in the trial of offence only after the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged the Court can decide whether the article seized can be confiscated or not under section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 of the NDPS Act. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 63 reveals that in the trial of offence only after the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged the Court can decide whether the article seized can be confiscated or not under section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 of the NDPS Act. The confiscating authority had acted in haste and giving a complete go by to the provisions of Section 60 of the NDPS Act had confiscated the vehicle as well as the cash when the trial itself was pending and no final order was passed on the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner in committing the offence. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, since the order dated 14-8-2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Simdega in Confiscation Case No. 06 2013-14 being premature is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. This application stands allowed.