Page No.1 of 5 2025:CGHC:11015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2025 Tejpal Singh S/o Shri Suryapal Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Kumhar Raas, Sukma, Police Station And District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma (Judgment on Board) 06.03.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-A/1), whereby the order of confiscation of vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17-KY-3449 and Rs.20,000/- cash, belonging to the appellant, has been passed erroneously even after the acquittal of the appellant from the charges under Section 21(b), 21(c) (two counts) & 29 of the NDPS Act, by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2. Prosecution’s story in brief, is that on 27.01.2024, at around 20:30 hours, the police received information from some unknown source VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.05.19 12:33:08 +0530 Page No.2 of 5 that two persons are illegally carrying contraband for sale in open market. Thereafter, on reaching the place of offence i.e. Vanya Lawn, Dalpat Sagar Lake, Jagdalpur, the appellant alongwith other co-accused were found sitting in Motor-cycle bearing Registration No.CG-17-KY-3449 and, consequently, they were intercepted and from their possession illegal contraband were found/seized. Following the investigation, the vehicle and contraband were seized, and a charge sheet was filed under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. However, vide impugned judgment dated 29.01.2025, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jagdalpur, the appellant and other co-accused persons were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The acquittal was due to the prosecution's failure to conduct a proper investigation in accordance with the NDPS Act, but still the Court directed for confiscation of vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17-KY-3449 and Rs.20,000/- cash, belonging to the appellant. 4. It appears from the trial Court's order that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the seizure of the article from the appellant's possession was not established. Therefore, the court should not have ordered the confiscation of the said vehicle and cash after the acquittal. The order of confiscation is illegal, erroneous, and liable to be set aside. Page No.3 of 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, to the extent that it orders the confiscation of the vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17- KY-3449 and Rs.20,000/- cash, belonging to the appellant, even after the acquittal of the accused/appellant, is bad in law, perverse, and arbitrary. He also submits that the learned trial Court has to appreciate that when the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the seized goods were narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the provisions of Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would not be applicable. He further submits that the order of acquittal itself undermines the purpose of the NDPS Act, and further confiscation of the vehicle and cash, belonging to the appellant, would be a clear abuse of the legal process and a violation of the appellant's fundamental rights. 6. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise before passing of the impugned order of confiscation, the appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, therefore, there is clear violation of Section 63 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, on this count also the impugned order of confiscation is liable to be set aside. He also submits that after the acquittal, it is unnecessary to confiscate the vehicle and initiate new proceedings. He also submits that the learned trial court failed to consider Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not order the disposal of the property, despite passing an acquittal order. The direction to Page No.4 of 5 seize the appellant's vehicle and cash amount to an abuse of legal process of law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submit that the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Korba has rightly rejected the order of supurdnama of the said vehicle to the appellant, but fairly admits that no appeal was filed by the respondent / State against the judgment of the acquittal. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 9. It transpires from the record that the appellant who had faced trial along with the co-accused has been acquitted by the trial Court by the impugned judgment and the trial Court while acquitting the appellant ordered for confiscation of the vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17-KY-3449 and Rs.20,000/- cash, belonging to the appellant, which was stated to be used in the alleged offence in question and, on 29.04.2023, the trial Court has directed that the vehicle in question be confiscated and the same was challenged before this Court in the present appeal. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that as he has been acquitted, hence the order passed by the learned trial Court for confiscation of the vehicle and cash in question is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Page No.5 of 5 11.Considering the fact that the appellant has already been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal has been filed by the State/respondent against the judgment of acquittal of the appellant, learned trial Court has passed the order of confiscation without assigning any reason, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17- KY-3449 of which the appellant is the registered owner and Rs.20,000/- cash which also belongs to the appellant, be confiscated, hence the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, with respect to the confiscation of the vehicle (KTM Motor Cycle) bearing No. CG-17-KY-3449 and Rs.20,000/- cash, belonging to the appellant, is hereby set-aside. Learned trial Court is directed to handover the said vehicle and Rs.20,000/- cash to the appellant forthwith. 12.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge vaishali