Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 551 (MP)

Hemant Rai v. State of M. P.

2020-05-12

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been preferred under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, the 'CrPC') against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Shivpuri in Case No. 7/2019 SST, whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 451 read with section 457 of CrPC seeking custody of Indica Car bearing registration No. MP07CA7747 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per prosecution story, the vehicle Indica Car bearing registration No. MP 07 CA 7747 has been seized in connection with an offence registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 96/2019 under section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner preferred an application under section 451 read with section 457 CrPC before the trial Court for releasing the seized vehicle on Supurdiginama on the ground that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated into alleged offence and the same is kept in police station since 9.4.2019 causing serious loss to the petitioner. The petitioner was ready to furnish surety, but the same was rejected by order dated 16.12.2019 by the trial Court without assigning any reason. Against which, the petitioner has preferred present criminal revision before this Court. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said Indica Car bearing registration No. MP 07 CA 7747 and he has not violated any law. No purpose would be served in keeping the said vehicle in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned Special Judge committed error in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for handing over the said vehicle in petitioner's custody as the allegation of transportation of 31K.G. of Ganja in the said vehicle is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Cr.R. No. 1765/2015 (Gurbinder Singh and Shinder v. State of Punjab) decided on 19.6.2016. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the vehicle in question be given in custody to the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the revision and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 6. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the vehicle in question be given in custody to the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the revision and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 6. From perusal of the available record it is apparent that vehicle involved is seized as evidence and as the property seized is the matter of evidence before the trial Court, therefore, it is not appropriate to release the said vehicle at this stage. This Court is not sitting as an appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence or reweigh the findings. In absence of any serious procedural irregularity, palpable perversity or judicial impropriety by the Court below, which amounts to abuse of process of law, this Court is not required to exercise, it's section 482 CrPC jurisdiction. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no flaw in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The order passed by the Court below is well reasoned containing cogent and plausible conclusions arrived on detailed discussions and reasons. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Court below. 7. Resultantly, present revision fails and is dismissed.