MO. RAEEYSH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') is filed against the order dtd. 29/1/2020 passed in Special Case (NDPS) No.13/2019 by which learned Special Judge (NDPS) Balodabazar (CG) rejected the application filed by revisioner under Sec. 451 of CrPC for grant of interim custody of his pick-up vehicle.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that revisioner is the registered owner of pick-up vehicle bearing No. CG04-C-0256, which was seized by police in connection with Crime No.265/2019 registered in Police Station Simga District Raipur for commission of offence under Sec. 20-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985') as the same was alleged to have been used in illegal transportation of cannabis. Applicant claiming himself to be registered owner of said vehicle filed an application under Sec. 451 of CrPC seeking interim custody of the same. By the order impugned, the trial Court rejected said application holding that the pick-up vehicle was found to be containing total 50 kilograms of ganja kept concealed in the secret chamber made in the floor of said pick-up vehicle, which is suggestive of fact that vehicle would have been used for such illegal work because normally such secret chamber is not found in the vehicles and if the vehicle is given on suprudnama, there will be possiblity of changes in secret chamber made in the vehicle, which may affect the evidence. Therefore, revisioner has preferred this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question i.e. pick-up, and in support thereof, he has also submitted registration certificate etc. of said vehicle, therefore, he is entitled to get interim custody of said vehicle, however, the trial Court erroneously rejected prayer of interim custody of vehicle. He submits that revisioner has given said vehicle to one Vimal Banjare for a period of 11 months on the monthly rent of Rs.15,000.00 for doing transportation work and an agreement dtd. 25/5/2019 (Annexure R-3) to this effect was also executed between them. Under the said agreement, revisioner had taken all necessary precautions to ensure that said vehicle is not used in commission of any offence. However, without the knowledge of revisioner, his vehicle was used in alleged commission of offence. He further submits that vehicle is lying idle since long in the campus of police station concerned in open sky and under the direct heat of sun and rains, thereby vehicle is loosing its value day-by-day due to lack of protection from weather and without there being any maintenance etc. Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, no purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in question parked in the police station where it would run the risk of deterioration on account of weather and other factors. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambelal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.