ABHAYA KUMAR SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the legality of the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal, in Special Case No. 34 of 2000 refusing interim custody of the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner is under challenge.

(2.) The case in brief is that on 9.12.2000 at about 1.45 A.M. the O.I.C., Balimi Police Station found the jeep bearing registration No. OR-04-B/1658 engaged in transporting poppy straw. At the time of detection, the driver of the jeep escaped whereas the other occupant of the jeep was arrested. The O.I.C. seized the jeep along with the bags containing poppy straw with which the jeep was found loaded. The petitioner, having come to know about the seizure, filed a petition under Section 457, Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned Judge, Special Court after hearing both the sides rejected the prayer of the petitioner observing that the claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the transportation does not inspire confidence as the contraband articles were transported with the full knowledge of the driver who was under the employment of the petitioner and as there was no material to show that the vehicle was hired by anyone for conveyance of passenger or transportation of any other goods and as there was no material to show that the vehicle was let out to the driver with the agreement that he was to ply the same according to his discretion and pay the hire charges periodically. It has also been observed that the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one and there is chance for its confiscation.

(3.) The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about the transportation of contraband articles in the jeep. According to the petitioner, while the vehicle was proceeding to Dudurikot from Cuttack, the same was seized along with the contraband articles. According to him against his specific instruction to the driver not to carry any contraband article it appears that the vehicle was engaged in transporting contraband article and he had no knowledge about the transportation. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed Graduate and was earning his livelihood by plying the jeep as contract carriage. The jeep after the seizure has been kept within the compound of Balimi Police Station exposed to sun and rain and is likely to be damaged and become useless unless the same is given to the custody of the petitioner, who is entitled to possess the same being its registered owner. It is also contended that the petitioner not only will be deprived of earning his livelihood but will be unable to pay the instalment of the O.S.F.C. from which financial institution getting a loan as an unemployed Graduate he purchased the jeep for self employment and will suffer irreparable loss. He, therefore, submits that the learned Judge, Special Court should have considered the above aspect and released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The leaned Addl. Govt. Advocate, however, argued in support of the impugned order contending that since there is very likelihood of its confiscation, the order of the learned Judge, Special Court should not be interfered with.