Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 187 (RAJ)

Ajay @ Vikas v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-30

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

body2024
ORDER : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. By way of filing present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, whereby, the application for releasing the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated without waiting for the conclusion of the trial. It is argued that the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 27.08.2022 has dismissed the application for releasing the vehicle without initiating any confiscation proceedings. It is also argued that in the present case charge-sheet has already been filed against the accused and trial may take its own time to conclude, therefore, if the vehicle is not released its condition may deteriorate and its value would be reduced substantially as it is lying in an open place at the police station, therefore, revision petition may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision petition. He argued that the accused was carrying opium containing weight of 130 grams without any permit on the said motor cycle. It is also submitted that under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act any vehicle used to carrying any narcotic drug is liable to confiscation unless the owner of the vehicle proved that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself. It is also argued that the proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle can be initiated against the owner at any stage and it is not required that such proceedings be initiated after concluding the trial. 4. Learned trial court while dismissing the application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Smt. Lalita Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 2014(2) RCC (Raj.) 579 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan : 2000 CriLJ 3971 (S.C.). 5. 4. Learned trial court while dismissing the application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Smt. Lalita Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 2014(2) RCC (Raj.) 579 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan : 2000 CriLJ 3971 (S.C.). 5. In the matter of Smt. Lalita Devi (supra) the coordinate Bench of this Court after taking note of Sections 60 and 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act has observed as under:- "The NDPS Act also provided for confiscation of a vehicle if it is found to be used for carrying a narcotic drug and, therefore, the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are equally applicable to the present case also. It is pertinent to note that the authorized officer under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act in the aforesaid case ordered to release the seized Jeep to the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle on the condition that he shall furnish irrevocable bank guarantee from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case charged against the Jeep. The owner of the vehicle being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court modified the order of the authorized officer in the manner that the aforesaid condition of the bank guarantee was removed. The State of Karnataka challenged the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the lst para of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it even does not approve the order of the Authorized Officer, who released the vehicle on the condition that the owner would furnish irrevocable bank guarantee. It is thus clear that Hon'ble Apex Court was of the firm view that in such matters in which the vehicle is liable to be confiscated normally it is not be released even temporarily during pendency of trial or confiscation proceedings. It is thus clear that Hon'ble Apex Court was of the firm view that in such matters in which the vehicle is liable to be confiscated normally it is not be released even temporarily during pendency of trial or confiscation proceedings. In the present case also as the seized vehicle is liable to be confiscated by the Court at the conclusion of the trial or of the confiscation proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner, I am of the view that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Courts below if they refused to release the seized vehicle and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So far as the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the same is of no help to the petitioner." 6. The coordinate Bench of this Court while making the above observations relied upon the judgment of K. Krishnan (supra) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Forest Act. 7. In the above matter Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that "liberal approach in the matter with respect to property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act." Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that "before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the Authorized Officer of the Appellate Authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being confiscated ultimately." 8. In the present matter admittedly accused petitioner was found to be carrying prohibited substance on the said motor cycle. 9. The coordinate Bench has also held that confiscation proceedings can be initiated at any time and it is not necessary to weight for conclusion of the trial. 10. The object of carving the provision concerning confiscation of the articles in the statute book is to strictly deal with the criminals, who are rampantly providing their vehicles deliberately and purposefully for transporting the contraband articles or are directly involved in the commission of such crimes. 10. The object of carving the provision concerning confiscation of the articles in the statute book is to strictly deal with the criminals, who are rampantly providing their vehicles deliberately and purposefully for transporting the contraband articles or are directly involved in the commission of such crimes. If the prosecution is prima facie able to establish the fact about the direct or indirect involvement of the owner or possession holder of the vehicle in the alleged crime then the court is not obliged to release the vehicle to such a person. If such a liberal approach is adopted then the provisions for confiscating the vehicles shall come to be redundant. 11. The Court is well conscious of the fact that police stations are having paucity of space and the property seized is a valuable national asset and such an asset cannot be allowed to deteriorate or turn into debris. 12. Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act further provides that if the article, which is liable to be confiscated is turned into debris or deteriorate then also the Court can sell such article. 13. It is also pertinent to point out that if the alleged vehicle is released routinely on the conditions imposed by the Court and after the trial court concludes that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated then in such a situation executing the compliance of conditions imposed for releasing the vehicle would become more cumbersome. 14. This Court cannot lose sight of the factors that trial of a case is a procrastinated process and may take years to culminate. In such circumstances, the best alternative available for the Court is to initiate the confiscation proceedings and if owner is unable to explain regarding carrying of contraband articles through such vehicle, then the Court can pass order for confiscation. 15. In the present case, it is admitted that accused-petitioner himself was found carrying the contraband article on the questioned vehicle. 16. In light of the above discussion, the revision petition sans any merit and dismissed with the direction to the learned trial court to initiate the confiscation proceedings within a period of one month, if not already initiated. 17. All pending applications stand disposed off.