1 CRA No.1867/2017 2025:CGHC:29609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1867 of 2017 Haldhar Mahkul S/o Kirtan Mahkul Aged About 33 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kekrajhariya, P. S. Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21/11/2016, passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS), Raigarh, District:Raigarh in Special Case N.D.P.S. No.206100000/15/2011, whereby the appellant was acquitted for the charge under Section AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.03 10:39:06 +0530 2 CRA No.1867/2017 20(B)(ii)(C), but as regard the seized vehicle Bolero No.CG-13 C-6893 which was registered in the name of appellant on 22/10/2010, the learned trial Court on the basis of the ground that neither the appellant nor any person had claimed ownership over the seized Bolero vehicle and therefore had directed for forfeiture of the offending vehicle. 2. Case of the prosecution, is that, on 01/10/2010, Inspector C.L. Sidar posted at Police Station Lalunga received information from an informer that a Bolero vehicle without number plate is carrying ganja coming from Odisha towards village Baiskimuda, thereafter, informer panchnama was prepared in front of witnesses Jagat Ram Kandra and Jatagram Chauhan. During investigation, Bolero vehicle without number plate was found parked in front of the house of Liladhar Mahkool's house. On surrounding the said vehicle, the driver/owner of the vehicle, seeing the police and taking advantage of the night, abandoned the vehicle and fled away from the spot. On questioning Chitni Mahkool, wife of house owner Liladhar Mahkool, she told that the name of the driver/owner of the said Bolero vehicle was Haldhar Mahkool of village Kenkrajharia. On searching the vehicle, 151.400 k.g. contraband Ganja was found from the said vehicle, which is also proved in FSL report. Subsequently, FIR was registered against the appellant and chargesheet was filed before the trial Court. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the 3 CRA No.1867/2017 aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant, however, directed for forfeiture of the offending vehicle as during the trial nobody has claimed ownership in respect of the same. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite the fact that the seized Bolero vehicle is owned by the appellant and was registered in the name of appellant on 22/10/2010 by the RTO, Raigarh bearing No.CG-13 C-6893, the same is marked as Annexure A-2. He further submits that since the appellant is entitled to get the said property because according to law, the entitlement of the ownership of vehicle is only restricted to the registration certificate and the seized vehicle is registered in the name of the appellant, hence, appeal may be allowed and the seized Bolero vehicle may be ordered to be given to the appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the same and supports the impugned judgment . 4 CRA No.1867/2017 He further submits that the learned trial Court has concluded the observation while passing the order impugned, which is just and proper in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Regarding the identification of the accused, C.L. Sidar (PW-11), Investigating Officer stated in paragraph 18 that he had sent written letter Ex.P-2 to Mahindra Bolero Agency, Raigarh regarding the registration of the vehicle, which has been supported by (PW-2) Deepak Singh, who is posted as Sales Manager in Mahindra showroom. The said witness has given written information Ex.P-3 to the police station, in this regard. 9. On perusal of Ex.P.-3, which has been sent by Mahindra Bolero Company to the Police Station, Bolero Vehicle Engine No.GAA4F 16789 and Chassis No. MA1WG2GAKA5F76677 is mentioned therein and the alleged vehicle belongs to Haldhar Yadav, resident of Kekrajharia, P.O. Piprahi, P.S. and Tahsil-Lailunga, District: Raigarh, C.G. and that it was financed by Indusind Bank Ltd. Even in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has not given any explanation with regard to the offending vehicle. 10.As far as the seized Bolero vehicle is concerned, it is evident from the statement of the witnesses that contraband was seized from the alleged vehicle which at the time of trial, the appellant had not 5 CRA No.1867/2017 made any claim in respect of the seized vehicle at the stage of trial. Now subsequently after the judgment of acquittal, the appellant has filed this appeal along with a document showing ownership of the vehicle and praying for setting aside the order of the trial Court in respect of seized vehicle only which in the opinion of this Court is not appropriate as the said document has not been exhibited before the trial Court. 11.For the foregoing reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper, warrant no interference of this Court. 12.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep