TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion under Section 451 Cr.P.C. - Reference disposed off. - CRR No.1765 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2016 - Mr. M. Jeyapaul And Mrs. Sneh Prashar, JJ. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate For The Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, ADDL.A.G., Punjab. JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, 1. Petitioner Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder sought for release of Swift Dzire car bearing Engine No.D13A5100071 and Chassis No.MA3FSEB1S00478125 on sapurdari before the trial Court. The trial Court having made an observation that the car was used for carrying the contraband as per the averments found in the FIR and that the trial was yet to begin, chose to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner praying for release of vehicle on sapurdari. Aggrieved by the rejection of the plea for release of the car on sapurdari, the present revision petition was preferred by the petitioner. 2. Learned Single Judge of this Court having heard the submissions made on either side passed an order as follows:- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued for release of vehicle in case FIR No.12/15 dated 16.01.2015 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be kept parked till the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar reaches a conclusion in the trial after affording opportunity to the petitioner that the vehicle is liable to confiscation. Inasmuch as there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act, 1985, the provisions under Section 451 Cr.P.C. will have to be resorted to for releasing the vehicle for interim custody, it was contended. 7. Learned State counsel vehemently submitted that the vehicle seized under NDPS Act is liable to be confiscated. As observed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Amritsar the vehicle would be required for exhibition during the course of trial. At any rate, the respondent has no objection in releasing the vehicle for interim custody, it was submitted. 8. Let us first deal with the relevant provisions under the Cr.P.C. which have bearing on the issue involved. Sections 451 and 452 and 457 For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 3 of 14 Cr.P.C. read as follows:- 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 5 of 14 or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise. 457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... searches and seizures made under this Act. As regards the seizure of any article or thing, the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply if it is not inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS Act. 12. On a thorough perusal of the various provisions under the NDPS Act, we find that there is no specific provision debarring the release of the vehicle seized under the Act. When the provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is not inconsistent with any specific provision under NDPS Act, the same will have to be applied as mandated under Section 51 of the said Act. 13. A vehicle used for committing rape and murder is being released in the garb of Section 451 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra). When the vehicles seized in such heinous crimes are released for interim custody, there is no logic in denying interim custody of the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act. Neither the State nor the owner of the vehicle is going to be benefited if the vehicle in the premises of the police station occupies a larger space posing inconvenience to the Police Department. Further, it is an open secret that when a vehicle is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance [or controlled substance] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale. 15. A conveyance seized under the NDPS Act shall be liable to confiscation only when the owner of the conveyance who was given an For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 10 of 14 opportunity by the Court could not prove that the conveyance was used without his knowledge or connivance. The Court will have to decide whether a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is liable to confiscation only on conclusion of trial. The trial Court has to take independent decision on the question of confiscation irrespective of the conviction or acquittal or discharge recorded by it. But, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that no distinction was made between the vehicles seized under the Scheme of Cr.P.C. and the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. In the special facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 12 of 14 down in the above judgement that the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is not to be released on sapurdari. There was also no specific observation that the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act will have to be treated separately while considering the plea for interim custody thereof. Therefore, the above observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be cited for rejecting the plea for release of the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act on sapurdari. In Tarsem Singh's case (supra), a totally different issue as to whether a Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who was not the Special Judge conferred with the power to try the case under the NDPS Act could pass an order releasing the vehicle on sapurdari had arisen for determination. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
