Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 318 (GAU)

Union Of India v. Balwinder Singh

2020-03-02

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2020
JUDGMENT Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel CBI assisted by Ms. R Dey, learned counsel. However, none appears for the respondent. 2. This appeal purportedly under section 454 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc Case No.5/2010 arising out of Sessions (Special) Case No.45(K)/2008, granting interim custody of a vehicle. 3. In Sessions (Special) Case No.45(K)/2008, the accused Balwinder Singh and Binoy Daimary stood trial for the offence under section 20(b)(II)(c) of the NDPS Act. On conclusion of trial, learned Special Judge by judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 acquitted both the accused persons who were standing trial. Learned Special Judge in the aforementioned judgment although, passed an order for confiscation of the seized narcotic (ganja), no order was passed in respect of the vehicle seized in connection with the said offence. 4. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent Balwinder Singh purportedly under section 452 Cr.P.C. seeking disposal of the said vehicle bearing registration No.NL08A-0437. The petition was resisted by the appellant herein, and upon hearing the parties learned Special Judge passed the impugned order granting interim custody of the said vehicle in favour of the respondent. The operative part of the order impugned is as follows: wxyz "On perusal of record it appears that petitioner has filed the petitoin for releasing of truck much after few months of passing the judgment & order (14-12-2009). Petitioner has been tried to show the reason of delay through the petition and submission. After hearing both sides learned counsels and in my considered opinion I am inclined to grant the interim custody of the said vehicle to its registered owners after proper identification and verification by I.O on executing a bond of Rs.5 lakhs till further direction. In any manner the vehicle shall not be handed over to any other person." zyxw 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant CBI has preferred the instant appeal under section 454 Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. SC Keyal and perused the impugned order. 7. Section 451 Cr.P.C., provides the procedure for interim custody of the property before the criminal Court during enquiry or trial and section 452 Cr.P.C., deals with disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. SC Keyal and perused the impugned order. 7. Section 451 Cr.P.C., provides the procedure for interim custody of the property before the criminal Court during enquiry or trial and section 452 Cr.P.C., deals with disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. As provided by section 452 Cr.P.C., on conclusion of the trial, the criminal Court may make an order for disposal of the property in any of the manner as laid down in Section 452 Cr.P.C., namely, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise. 8. Therefore, section 452 Cr.P.C., does not envisage interim custody of the property after disposal of the case which for all practical purposes is the custody of the Court. When the criminal trial is concluded, there is no question of giving interim custody of the property, rather Section 452 Cr.P.C., mandates the disposal of the property finally by any of the mode prescribed therein, subject off course to the limitation as laid down in sub-section 2 & 4. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Special Judge did not pass any order for disposal of the property in terms of section 452 Cr.P.C., rather, a simple order was passed granting temporary or interim custody of the vehicle without applying its judicial mind. The impugned order having not been passed for disposal of the property in terms of section 452 Cr.P.C., it cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2010 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent is set-aside. However, since no order has been passed for disposal of the vehicle which was allegedly seized in connection with the aforementioned case, though the criminal trial was concluded, it would be in the fitness of the matter to remand back the matter to the learned Special Judge to pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 452 Cr.P.C. The appeal stands allowed. Let the matter be remitted to the learned trial Court for fresh disposal. 11. Upon receipt of the record, learned trial Court shall pass appropriate order(s) under section 452 Cr.P.C., for disposal of the vehicle. 12. Send down the LCR.