Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 149 (RAJ)

Ashok Transport Company v. Union Of India

2023-01-12

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition praying that the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Court NO.1, Chittorgarh, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to grant custody of seized 800 cement bags (50 Kg. each) to the petitioner. The cement was seized in connection with FIR No.06/2022 registered at CBN Singoli, District Neemach (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is for releasing the 800 cement bags seized in a NDPS case, as between such goods, NPS contraband was being carried. Learned counsel further states that confiscation proceedings have not been initiated till now. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the article should not be permitted to remain in the police station as same shall not remain useful. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai (Supra) has held as under:- "15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared." 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-Mr. KS Nahar fairly submit that there is total 789 of cement bags, which are amounting to Rs.1,75,000/-. They further submit that confiscation proceedings have not been initiated till now. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. Thus, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and order passed by this Court in Pannaram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.439/2020) decided on 29.06.2020 and Amra Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.1657/2020) decided on 04.09.2020, the present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the 789 cement bags on supardaginama in favour of petitioner on usual conditions, which the trial court deems fit, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.150,000/- before the trial court. However, release of such bank guarantee shall remain subject to the final outcome of the case before the concerned court below.