1 2025:CGHC:7023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 492 of 2025 Omprakash Behra S/o Gunoram Behra Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Munund, Tehsil Dharamjaygarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Through Police Station- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The petitioner has been preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the learned Fourth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 138/2024 (Annexure P/1) raising out of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in revenue case no. 32/B-121-2023-24 (Annexure P/2) by the learned District Magistrate Raigarh (C.G.). 3. The case in nutshell is that the offending vehicle was seized by police officials of Police Station, Sarsiwa, District Bilaigarh – 2 Sarangarh (C.G.) alleging that on receiving a secret information by the informant that two persons transporting contraband Ganja from Saraipali to Janjgir Champa. On such information, total 285.480 Kgs Ganja was seized from Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.OD-31-F-5668 and case under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been registered against accused. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and he filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for taking Supurdnama of the said vehicle, and categorically stated that he is registered owner of the said vehicle and hence he is entitled to take his vehicle which has been seized by the police but was consequently rejected by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing no. CG 13 AG 4772 which is insured in the name of petitioner only. The petitioner after obtaining loan from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company Ltd, was not able to repay the loan amount. On 30.03.2024 Officer registered FIR No. 209 of 2024 at P.S. Kharsiya, against the accused person named Vijay Gupta who had illegally transported liquor through vehicle Maruti Suzuki Artica, bearing no. CG 13 AG 4772. On such information the police authority stopped the vehicle and found 6.03 ltrs of foreign made liquor and also seized the same. FIR was registered and after filing of the charge sheet the police authority intimated to the Collector for that in the commission of offence under Section 34(2) of Excise Act, 1915 in crime no. 209/2024. Thereafter confiscation proceeding was initiated by the learned Collector, Raigarh under Section 47-A of the Excise Act. Petitioner submitted his reply and then the learned Collector by order dated 30.09.2024 the vehicle was confiscated. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Collector passed the order of the confiscation without following the provisions of excise act and also without giving any 3 opportunity to lead the evidence. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submission made in this regard. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: i. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; ii. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; iii. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; and iv. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders 4 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.” 8. Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 9. In the instant case, it has been observed that the learned concerned Collector while passing the said order had not followed the norms of Section 41A of the Excise Act, and it is also pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the petitioner has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said vehicle is allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the said vehicle can be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the article, so that he can use it and the said vehicle does not become junk after some time. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case, it is found that the said vehicle is left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the said vehicle is still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal desai(supra) and Multani hanifbhai Kalubhai(supra), the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 07.01.2025, passed by the learned Fourth Additional Session Judge, Raigarh 5 (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 138/2024 and the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in revenue case no. 32/B-121/2023-24 by the learned District Magistrate Raigarh C.G. is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the above, with the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza