Debasish @ Debashish Pradhan vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This present Criminal Revision is directed against the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Kesinga in C.M.C. Case No. 27 of 2026, arising out of Kesinga P.S. Case No. 218 of 2026 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 213 of 2026 refusing to release the vehicle seized in this case in favour of the petitioner.

Heard, Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Soumyajit Pradhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record together with the written instruction as produced by the learned Addl. PP.

Admittedly, the vehicle in question was seized in connection with Kesinga P.S. Case No. 218 of 2026 for commission of offence U/S.111(2) BNS r/w. Sec.25 of Arms Act, but in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted, however, the Investigating Officer has responded to a query of this Court that the vehicle is still required for the limited purpose of completing the pending verification of ownership documents and the claim of its owner. The aforesaid verification ought to have been included in the process of investigation, but even if the same has not been done, the same can be done even if the vehicle in question is released in favour of the person entitled thereof by imposing appropriate conditions. Further, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle ideal for a longer period and no provision has been brought to the notice of the Court that the said vehicle in question is liable for confiscation. In absence of any provision for initiating confiscation proceeding, the keeping of the seized vehicle in idle would not benefit anyone and taking into account the fact that the vehicle if kept in road-worthy condition, it would rather help the successful party or the State, who has seized the vehicle. Besides, it is not disputed that the petitioner is the elder brother of the registered owner, but the vehicle in question was seized from the petitioner and thereby, there would not be any impediment to release the vehicle in favour of the registered owner.

From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court in seisin over the matter has refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the registered owner of the vehicle on the ground that the document which the petitioner has filed is neither a power of attorney granting power to the said petitioner to receive the vehicle on his behalf nor is a legally recognized instrument conferring authority upon the petitioner to seek interim custody of the seized vehicle on behalf of the registered owner. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the submission as advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the course of hearing to release the vehicle in question in favour of the registered owner, this Court does not find any impediment to pass such order.

In the result, the Criminal Revision is, accordingly, disposed of and the learned JMFC, Kesinga is, hereby, requested to release the seized vehicle in question in interim custody of its registered owner on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by it.