Aditya Rajpoot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

“29.

Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.

30.

This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on supurdagi till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on supurdagi subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….. …. …. ….

33.

In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784 has held as under:-

“6.

The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36 -C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7.

Learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 opining that it is no use to keep such seized vehicles at police station for a long period and it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

8.

On hearing learned counsel for parties and in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court.”

“^{6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 SCC (Cri) 1943], Hon'ble Supreme} Court has observed that powers under section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely :

1.

owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2.

Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3.

if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4.

this jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

7.

In the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977)4 SCC 358], the apex Court has dealt with the cases where seized article were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles.

8.

It is worth mentioning here that, when a subject matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant. The idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases.

9.

In the view of this Court, in the present situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicle in the police station for a long period. It is for the Court 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.”

“6.2

If the facts of the present case are considered, then it would be clear that the allegations are that the tractor and trolley in question was used as a weapon of offence and, therefore, the prosecution will be required to get the tractor and trolley exhibited in the trial also. However, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), as well as the fact that the tractor and trolley will be lying unattended in an open place, this Court is of the view that in case if the applicant gives an undertaking before the trial Court that he would not dispute the fact that the tractor and trolley, which has been seized by the police was used in the commission of offence, then the tractor and trolley in question can be released subject to the following conditions :-

i- The police is directed to take the photographs of the tractor and trolley in presence of the applicant and the said photographs shall be countersigned by the applicant.

ii- The applicant must give an undertaking before the trial Court that he would produce the tractor and trolley at the time of recording of evidence and also would not object to the marking of the photographs as articles.

iii- the applicant shall not dispute any dent or mark present on the body of the tractor and trolley, which may be indicative of dashing against the motorcycle or running over the body of the injured.

iv- The applicant will execute a bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) and a surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

v- The applicant will not change the machinaries of the tractor.

vi- The applicant will not transfer or dispose of the tractor without permission of the trial Court.”

“6.

The alleged crime was committed on 20.01.2020. The Car was taken into custody on 05.02.2020. The bloodstains etc. have been collected from inside the car and now what remains is getting the report from the Chemical Examination Laboratory. In the light of the decision reported in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283 : AIR 2003 SC 638] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vehicles cannot be detained in custody unnecessarily.

7.

In the circumstances, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner who is the registered owner, on the following conditions:

1)

He shall execute a bond for Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2)

He shall not transfer ownership or possession of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings;

3)

He shall upkeep the vehicle under proper maintenance, remitting tax, insurance premium etc.;

4)

He shall not alter the nature, character and colour of the vehicle;

5)

He shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose;

6)

He shall produce the vehicle as and when necessary by the Investigating Officer/Court.”