1 2025:CGHC:16790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1530 of 2017 1 - Smt. Sadhna Singh W/o Late Shri Ashok Singh Baghel Aged About 40 Years R/o 734, Badkhara, Police Station- Churhat, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Baagbaahra, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 09/04/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated 11.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Act, Mahasamund (C.G.), in Misc Criminal Case No. 2 114/2012, whereby the learned Special Judge has ordered for con- fiscation of vehicle bearing no. MP 53 CA 0672. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant is the resident of District- Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh who has no criminal record and has never been indulged in any criminal activity. She is a widow and is the sole bread earner for herself and her unmarried daughter. One Ramesh Kumar Pandey who was employed as a driver by the appellant for her vehicle being a Dark Green Bolero bearing Registration no. MP 53 CA 0672 which she had bought for her personal use and com- mutation. On 18.12.2010 the driver of the appellant requested her to borrow the said vehicle, while stating that he wished to take his mother, father and relatives to Amarkantak and will be back within 2 days. Hence, being a trusted employee the late son of the appellant thus allowed Ramesh Kumar Pandey to take the vehicle on the said pretext. However, when the driver did not turn up with the vehicle despite a lapse of 4 days, the son of the Appellant approached the concerned Police Station on 22.12.2010 informing the Police au- thorities regarding the missing vehicle and requesting them to inves- tigate the same. On approaching the police station and on the injury done by the concerned officers, the appellant came to know that the vehicle has been impounded by the police authorities at C.G. It came to the knowledge of the appellant that on 20.12.2010 at about 3:30 pm, the police had caught Ramesh Kumar Pandey along with one Satyendra Pandey while allegedly conveying about 241 kg of Ganja in the vehicle. The said vehicle was intercepted at a check- point at District-Mahasamund (C.G.) and hence the accused individ- 3 uals were arrested and the indulged vehicle was seized by the po- lice at Mahasamund (C.G.). An FIR bearing Crime No. 398/2010 was registered at Police Station-Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) charging the accused individuals under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned court below has committed an error of law in passing the impugned order whereby the learned court has passed the order of confiscation on the sole ground that the appellant has not produced any document in support of the fact that a complaint of missing vehicle was lodge with the police station. He further contended that the learned Court below has failed to observe and hold that in absence of any knowl- edge regarding the illegal activity being carried on by her driver and not at all being in connivance with the accused individuals in the crime thereof, the appellant would be protected under the proviso of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Trial Court has rightly passed the order for confiscation, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of record, it transpires that one Ramesh Kumar Pandey was employed as a driver by the appellant for her vehicle being a Dark Green Bolero bearing Registration no. MP 53 CA 0672 which she had bought for her personal use and commutation. On 4 18.12.2010 the driver of the appellant requested her to borrow the said vehicle, while stating that he wished to take his mother, father and relatives to Amarkantak and will be back within 2 days. Hence, being a trusted employee the late son of the appellant thus allowed Ramesh Kumar Pandey to take the vehicle on the said pretext. However, when the driver did not turn up with the vehicle despite a lapse of 4 days, the son of the Appellant approached the concerned Police Station on 22.12.2010 informing the Police authorities re- garding the missing vehicle and requesting them to investigate the same. On approaching the police station and on the injury done by the concerned officers, the appellant came to know that the vehicle has been impounded by the police authorities at C.G. It came to the knowledge of the appellant that on 20.12.2010 at about 3:30 pm, the police had caught Ramesh Kumar Pandey along with one Satyendra Pandey while allegedly conveying about 241 kg of Ganja in the vehicle. The said vehicle was intercepted at a checkpoint at District-Mahasamund (C.G.) and hence the accused individuals were arrested and the indulged vehicle was seized by the police at Mahasamund (C.G.). The appellant approached the concerned po- lice station on 22.12.2010 when the driver did not turn up with the vehicle despite a lapse of 4 days, informing the police authorities re- garding the missing vehicle which is exhibited as Annexure A-2. 7. An FIR bearing Crime No. 398/2010 was registered at Police Sta- tion-Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) charging the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 27 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The appellant thereafter preferred an application under Sec- 5 tion 371 of CrPC in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ma- hasamund (C.G.) seeking custody of the impounded vehicle. The learned Special Judge vide its order dated 24.02.2011 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2011 while observing and recording the fact that the appellant has not been accused of any illegal act and no proof to the effect has been brought forth in the charge sheet; deliberated that the vehicle being a degradable object may not be kept to rust and rot at the police station during the pendency of the criminal proceed- ings against the accused individuals, allowed the application of the appellant and thus directed the appellant herein to deposit a bank guarantee in tune of Rs. 4,10,000/- in lieu of the release of the Vehi- cle on Supurdnama, along with other necessary formalities. The or- der dated 24.02.2011 is exhibited as Annexure A-3. 8. The appellant duly complied with all the requisite conditions and for- malities as per the order of the learned Court and therefore, the con- cerned police authorities handed over the custody of the impounded vehicle to the appellant on supurdnama which is exhibited as An- nexure A-4. 9. Eventually, the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985) Ma- hasamund (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 25.02.2012 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 02/2011 found that accused Ramesh Kumar Pandey and Satyendra Pandey guilty of offences under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 27(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 and sen- tenced them to undergo R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- to each appellant which is exhibited as Annexure A-5. 6 10. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mahasamund also issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for confiscation of the vehicle on account of the ac- cused being found guilty of the offence alleged, which is exhibited as Annexure A-6. The appellant duly submitted her reply dated 27.03.2012 whereby she unambiguously explained her lack of knowledge of any such activity being carried by her driver and de- nied all the allegations made towards confiscation of the vehicle of her ownership, which is exhibited as Annexure A-7. Despite the re- ply and clarification given by the appellant the learned Special Judge vide its order dated 11.05.2017 directed the appellant to de- posit the vehicle at the Warehouse of the District Court, Ma- hasamund and furthermore directed the authorities to auction off the said vehicle and to deposit the amount with the Treasury, which is exhibited as Annexure A-1. 11. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 02.01.2019 in CRA No. 415 of 2012 and CRA No. 23 of 2015 held in para 18 as under: “18. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith. The Vehicle has already been given in interim custody to its registered owner Smt. Sadhana Singh. Disposal of the vehicle is accordingly ordered that interim custody is made final.” 7 12. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the documents available on record, the contentions of the counsels for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 114/2012 is bad in law and deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima