Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2473 (RAJ)

Jagsir Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-19

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - This way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "The Code") the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.08.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby, petitioner's application under Section 457 of the Code for release of his truck (TATA LPS 4018 R ERGO BS II, Registration No. RJ 13 GB 2829) on Supurdginama has been rejected. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that after investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet, however, the petitioner has not been named as accused in this case. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the truck in question which was given to respondent No. 2 and the contraband substance was recovered from such vehicle on 26.08.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner's application based on the judgment dated 12.04.2014 rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Lalita Devi v State of Rajasthan (S.B. CRLMP No. 2316/2013). Learned counsel relied on the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (SBCRLMP No. 3589/2022) and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is similar, rather, better inasmuch as the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the present case by the police. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.08.2022, reveals that the Court below has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of law laid down in the case of Lalita Devi (supra). 7. Before delving into the accuracy of the said order it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions dealing with confiscation and disposal of confiscated property, namely, sections 60 (3) and 63 (1) of the NDPS Act and section 452 (1) of the Code. ection 60 (3) of the NDPS reads as under: "60. 7. Before delving into the accuracy of the said order it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions dealing with confiscation and disposal of confiscated property, namely, sections 60 (3) and 63 (1) of the NDPS Act and section 452 (1) of the Code. ection 60 (3) of the NDPS reads as under: "60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.-- (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use." Section 63 (1) of the NDPS Act reads as under: "63. Procedure in making confiscations.-- (1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly." Section 452(1) of the Code reads as under: "452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.--(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence." 8. A conjoined reading of the above-quoted provisions of NDPS Act and the Code reveals the following: (i) Any vehicle used to carry any narcotic drug/psychotropic substance/controlled substances/any article liable to confiscation under section 60(1) and 60(2), shall be liable to confiscation; (ii) Upon conclusion of the trial of the accused, the Court must decide if such vehicle is liable to confiscation; (iii) If such vehicle is liable to confiscation the Court shall pass an order for confiscation; (iv) The Court may not pass an order for confiscation if the owner of the vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. 9. In the facts of the present case, this Court feels that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle will not serve any purpose. Per contra allowing an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would firstly create an additional burden on the State for its management and secondly, may cause depletion of the vehicle to such an extent that regardless of the ultimate verdict on its confiscation, the vehicle would deplete to such an extent that it would be rendered defunct by the end of the trial, which may take years. 10. That apart, small quantity of 5 kgs. poppy straw was recovered from the vehicle, which had been given by the petitioner (registered owner) to respondent No. 2 and the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 03.08.2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to release the vehicle in question (No. RJ 13 GB 2829) on supurdagi in accordance with law obviously, on being satisfied that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question and subject however to a condition that he submits an FDR of Rs. 16,00,000/- issued by some nationalised bank drawn in the name of the trial court. 14. The petitioner shall be required to furnish an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that as and when the vehicle is required during the trial, he shall produce the same before the trial Court, apart from other usual conditions of not creating third party rights, changing the colour etc. 15. 14. The petitioner shall be required to furnish an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that as and when the vehicle is required during the trial, he shall produce the same before the trial Court, apart from other usual conditions of not creating third party rights, changing the colour etc. 15. The final order of release of vehicle/FDR so furnished, shall be passed only in case the trial court holds that the vehicle in question is not liable to be confiscated. In case, the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated, then amount of FDR shall be forfeited. 16. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.