1 2025:CGHC:5680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 374 of 2025 1 - Usman Khan S/o Saroop Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Mev Bas, Kairvada, Kairwara Alwar, Haldeena Rajasthan (Address Of The Petitioner As Per His Aadhar Card) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Pakhanjoor, District - North-Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Collector District - North-Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police District - North-Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For the State : Shri G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 30/12/2024, passed by the learned Collector North-Bastar Kanker in Case No. 202409140100087/Essential Commodities Act, 1955 under Section 3, 7/2023-24 and release of vehicle Tata Truck bearing No. RJ 11 GB 9189 on supurdnama in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is the registered owner NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.02.25 17:50:13 +0530 2 of Tata Truck vehicle No. RJ 11 GB 9189, which has been seized in connection of Crime No. 147/2024 registered before PS Pakhanjoor for the offence under Section 318(4), 3(5) BNS and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. On 22.07.2024, Manoj Kumar Sarkar, Fertilizer Inspector submitted a written complaint and Crime No.147/2024 was registered. On the basis of that complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused, they have earlier sold fake fertilizer to the villagers and they were transporting fake fertilizers again to sell. On the said report, the Tata Truck vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. RJ 11 GB 9189 has been seized on which the fertilizer was transporting and the petitioner was also arrested on 23.07.2024 in relation to the above mentioned crime number. 4. On 19.09.2024, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation in relation to the seizure of vehicle, which the petitioner could not reply as he was in jail since 23.07.2024. Thereafter, when the petitioner enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8513/2024 vide order dated 05.12.2024 has presented an application for interim release of his vehicle Tata Truck bearing No. RJ 11 GB 9189 in supurdnama on 16.12.2024, before learned Collector North-Bastar Kanker. Till date no confiscation has been done and therefore there is no alternative remedy available under section 6 (C) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 to the petitioner and also as per section 6(E) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, there is bar on the certain jurisdiction where confiscation process has not been completed, hence, the petitioner prefers this present petition under Section 528 of BNSS. 3 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Collector suffers from gross illegality, irregularity as the provisions and due process of law laid down under Section 497 of BNSS has been ignored. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed an application for interim release of his vehicle before the confiscation proceedings and only show cause notice has been served. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent forum and there is no need of vehicle for the purposes of investigation. He also submits that the collector while ignoring the relevant provisions of law for grant of interim custody of vehicle has rejected the supurdnama application on whimsical grounds while also ignoring the fact that if the vehicle is left in such a condition in police station, then it will lead to irreparable loss. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Collector has ignored the fact that the petitioner was in custody and therefore he could not reply to the show cause notice issued to him while he was in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638; observed that "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate 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." Therefore, in light of the same, the interim supurdnama of vehicle should have been given to petitioner and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Collector, North-Bastar Kanker 4 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that there is no irregularity and illegality in the order passed by the learned Collector and prayed that this petition may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. From perusal of order dated 30/12/2024, a show cause notice has been issued on 19/09/2024 regarding confiscation of the seized vehicle, but the petitioner has not submitted a reply to the notice because he was in jail at that time and has submitted an application for getting the seized vehicle truck in handover and the learned Collector has rejected the supurdnama application. It is fact that vehicle is lying at police station and the parts of the vehicle may get damaged. It is matter of common knowledge or experience that as and when the vehicle is seized and kept in police station, not only do they occupy substantial space in police station, but upon being kept in open are also prone to fast natural decay on account of whether conditions. It is also matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicle are either gets junked or are cannibalized so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the vehicle in police custody for a long time as it will turn junk and also occupy the substantial place of police station. 10. In facts of the case following the law laid down in case of Sunderbhai Desai (supra) the rejection of application for interim custody cannot be allowed to remain. Consequently, it is directed that the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner by way of interim measures, if the confiscation proceedings have not been concluded till the production of 5 this order. 11. In the result, order dated 30/12/2024 is quashed and the petition is partly allowed. The un-ladden (excluding the fertilizer) Truck bearing No.R.J.11 G.B. 9189 is directed to be released on the following conditions :- (i) Before release of vehicle, proper panchnama be prepared. (ii) Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial. (iii) Proper security and personal bond of the owner, amounting to present value of like vehicle, be obtained before release of the vehicle. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde