PRATEEK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Shahjahanpur as he refused and to release the Maruti Car No. UP -27J-107 involved in the case S.T. NO. 56 of 2009 under Section 18 N.D.P.S.Act.

(2.) Now almost, it is settled provision of law that under the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C., the court before whom the property is produced is empowered to release the vehicle during inquiry and trial of the accused persons. In case Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. state of Mysore, 1977 4 SCC 358 apex Court held "the object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been subject- matter of offence is seized by the Police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the Police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the Police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases.

(3.) In another case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar Rathor,1990 2 SCC 480 relating to release of Truck seized for the alleged contravention of provisions of Essential Commodities Act, the Apex Court repelling the contention that in view of the provisions of Section 6A and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the criminal court had no jurisdiction, held that the criminal court retain the jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of the jurisdiction.