1 2025:CGHC:38457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1254 of 2025 • Rajkumar Kewat, S/o Shree Manohar Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Dhawanga, P.S. Gandhinagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985 Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Special NDPS Sessions Case No.29/2022, whereby though the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 20(B) (ii) (इ) of the NDPS Act, but the confiscation proceeding regarding the seized vehicle Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP-64-BT-2028 have been directed to be initiated. DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that vide the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Jashpur in Special NDPS Session Case No.29/2022, though the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 20(B) (ii) (इ) of the NDPS Act, but regarding the seized vehicle Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP-64- BT-2028, the confiscation proceedings have been directed to be initiated and show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant and registration of MJC has also been directed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the seizure of the vehicle was incidental to investigation and in absence of conviction, there remains no justification in law for continuing its attachment or withholding its release to the rightful owner. The said vehicle is the bonafide property of the appellant and the seized vehicle is the sole source of livelihood of the appellant and due to its forfeiture, the appellant is suffering great financial hardships, but despite the same the confiscation proceedings have been directed to be initiated by the learned Special Court. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the appellant’s counsel and submits that the confiscation proceedings have already been directed to be initiated pursuant to the seized vehicle and show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant and registration of MJC has also been directed by the learned trial Court, as such the present appeal cannot be entertained at this stage and the same may kindly be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 6. Vide the impugned judgment, though the appellant has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges, but the confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicle have been directed to be initiated and the show cause notice has already been issued to the appellant by the learned Special Court and separate MJC 3 in this regard has also been directed to be registered, consequent to which MJC has been registered and the same is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that MJC concerning confiscation proceedings of the vehicle in question is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court, therefore, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Trial Court to decide the pending MJC within a stipulated period of 3 months from today, however, appellant would be at liberty to challenge the final order passed in the MJC, if he so desires. 8. The appellant is also directed to submit the copy of this order before the concerned Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, instant appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge