1 2025:CGHC:4598-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 44 of 2025 Bhojraj Chauhan S/o Abhiram Chauhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Chandagarh Bhaisamuda, Police Station- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, C.G. 2 - Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Jashpur, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent / State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.27 18:47:41 +0530 2 following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the paragraph no. 35 of the judgment dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) as well as impugned show cause notice dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate order for release Baleno Car bearing registration no. CG-14-MQ-4883 with its key. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was tried in Special NDPS Case No. 01/2024 before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jashpur for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) (ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) on the allegation of transportation of 50 kg. cannabis in the said Baleno Car bearing registration no. CG-14-MQ-4883 on 23.10.2023. After completion of trial, vide judgment dated 14.11.2024, the learned trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the offence U/s 20(B)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and while acquitting the petitioner, the learned trial Court has directed in Paragraph No. 35 of its judgment that a separate M.J.C. shall be registered for confiscation of the said seized Baleno Car and the show cause shall be issued to the petitioner for confiscation of said car Pursuant to the above impugned judgment, on 14.11.2024, the learned trial Court has issued impugned show cause notice to the petitioner and directed that why the seized Baleno Car 3 bearing registration no. CG-14-MQ-4883 may not be confiscated in favour of government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and impugned show cause notice, so far it relates to Paragraph No. 35 of the said judgment for confiscation of the seized Baleno Car bearing registration no. CG-14-MQ-4883, is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore it is liable to be quashed/set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner is the registered owner of Baleno Car bearing registration no. CG-14-MQ-4883, which was purchased by the petitioner for his routine work on finance and the petitioner is regularly paying the installment to the concerned financer. Further, the seized car of petitioner is lying idle in the open place and same is being deteriorated day-to-day. The glass of car has already been broken down, which is evident from the photograph. The confiscation of seized property amounts to impose punishment upon the petitioner, even though the petitioner has already been acquitted from the criminal charges. The seized vehicle is lying idle in an open place, due to which, the seized vehicle being machinery part, is being deteriorated day to day. Due to standing of vehicle in Thana premises, the daily work of the petitioner is being adversely affected, as the petitioner is required the vehicle for daily used purposes. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the matter is still pending before the competent Court and further, against the show cause notice, the petitioner has already filed his reply on 10.12.2024 and same is also 4 pending before the competent Court concerned, and in the meanwhile, petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing of the notice, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that petitioner has already submitted his reply on 10.12.2024 in pursuance of the notice issued to him by the competent Court and further the matter is subjudice before the competent Court concerned to decide the matter with respect to the confiscation of the seized vehicle, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the competent Court concerned to conclude the proceedings with respect to confiscation of the seized vehicle of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet