LALITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge Tonk in Criminal Revision Petition No.87/2012 whereby the learned revision Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has uphe and affirmed the order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistral Tonk in respect of FIR No. 164/2012 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. By way of its order dati 6.7.2012, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk dismissed the application filed the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.PC. for temporarily releasing the selzi vehicle in his favour on 'Supurdginama'.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No. 164/2012 came to be registered at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk on 5.6.20121 offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act against one Shri Kamal @ Ram on the premise that 210 grams of narcotic drug (Ganja) was recovered fit his possession when he was carrying it in a polythene bag in his hand riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-26-SG-0989. At the time recovery of the aforesaid contraband, seizure memo regarding seizure oft aforesaid motorcycle was also prepared and it is said that after investigation charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence has already been filed against Kamal @ Ram. Claiming to be the registered owner of the aforesaid the present petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.PC, temporarily releasing the vehicle in his favour during pendency of the trial the same was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide its on dated 6.7.2012 mainly on the ground that in such cases the seized cannot be released even temporarily during pendency of the trial. Fee aggrieved, the petitioner filed the aforesaid revision petition, but the same also dismissed by way of impugned order dated 8.5.2013 almost on the sin ground. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is now before Court by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition.

(3.) Inviting attention towards Section 61 of the NDPS Act learned court for the petitioner first of all submitted that according to this provision goods used for concealing any narcotic drug which is liable to confiscate under the Act is also liable to confiscation, but in the present case it is not case of the prosecution itself that the aforesaid motorcycle was used by accused or any other person including the petitioner to conceal the recover narcotic drug (Ganja), rather the case of the prosecution is that contraband was recovered when the accused was carrying it in a pith bag in his hand. Thus, according to the prosecution case the motorcycle not liable to confiscation and, therefore, it is in the interest of justice temporarily released in favour of the petitioner during pendency of the trip was further submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted the seized vehicle is liable to be confiscated even then it is required to released during pendency of the trial as the well settled legal position is the proceedings for confiscation of a seized vehicle would commence only the conclusion of the trial. in the present case, charge-sheet has been against the accused only and the trial may take its own time for its condition and if in the meanwhile the seized vehicle is not temporarily released condition may deteriorate day by day and its value would be read substantially as it is lying in an open place at the Police Station and the has no proper arrangement for its care. it was also submitted that charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner although he is registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.