Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010196322025 2025:GAU-AS:13498 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1083/2025 SRI AJAY SHANKAR SON OF SRI BHIKHARI DAS R/O MOHALLA-JERKILA, P.S. CHHIBRAMUA,DIST. KANNAUJ, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN-209721. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (DFO) CACHAR DIVISION AT SILCHAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I HAQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. I. Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Page No.# 2/4 The petitioner has preferred this application under Section 528 read with Section 498 of the BNSS, 2023 for releasing of the truck bearing Registration No. UP-74T-5134 seized in connection with CR Case No. 405/2019. Mr. I. Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck as mentioned above and that the father of the petitioner had expired. He submits that the truck has however not been transferred to the name of the son i.e., the petitioner and that the ownership still lies with the father of the petitioner who had already expired. He also submits that the case i.e., CR Case No. 405/2019 has been withdrawn. He has placed the order dated 27.03.2023 which reflects that the case is accordingly disposed on withdrawal and the seized articles by the said order was also directed to be disposed of in due course as per law. He submits that the truck has been lying with the authorities of the Forest Department till date. He also submits that although confiscation proceeding is provided for under the relevant law but since the trial did not end in any conviction or acquittal, the said confiscation proceeding was not initiated and the truck was lying just like that with the authorities of the Forest Department. The learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again had observed that it is no use keeping the seized articles at the Police Station or with the authorities for long since the same would result in wear and tear of the articles Page No.# 3/4 and the same may lead to destruction of the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalai Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 it is held that vehicle or other articles seized in any criminal offence should be given in custody even during the trial of the said offence to the owner or to the person from whom it is seized or to the insurance company with which it is insured and that in the absence of the same, the vehicles may be put to auction. In the instant case however it is seen that the case has resulted in withdrawal and the vehicle seized in connection of the said case was kept with the authorities of the Forest Department and was not released to the owner or from whom it is seized. It is also required that the vehicles or other articles has to be handed over to the owner of the same. However, in the instant case it is seen that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle but he is the son of the person in whose name the vehicle was registered. It can also not be brushed aside the fact that the rightful owner or the registered owner had expired and the petitioner is the son to whom the vehicle has not been transferred as of date. However, for the interest of justice, it is as such, directed that the truck bearing Registration No. UP-74T-5134 may be released to the petitioner at the earliest since the offence under which the truck was seized has been withdrawn Page No.# 4/4 and has been disposed of. Further, it is directed that the authorities in the Forest Department before releasing the vehicle may verify as to the fact that the petitioner is the son of the registered owner of the vehicle and that the ownership of the vehicle does not lie with anyone else. It is further directed that the authorities in the Forest Department would verify the next of kin certificate that would be submitted by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the rightful owner and may also verify that the said vehicle is not registered with anyone else apart from the father of the petitioner. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant