Surendranath Panda vs State Of Orissa on 7/7/2008

JUDGMENT

L.K. Mishra, J.

1. In this CRLMC challenge is made to the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in C.T. Case No. 112 of 2006 by which he refused to release the seized vehicle in the zima of the petitioner.

2. The factual backdrop is as follows. On 5.4.2006, accused Surendranath Panda (the present petitioner) was found transporting 69 K.Gs. of contraband Ganja in a TATA-ACE car which vehicle was intercepted by the O.I.C. Orkel Police Station. Charge Sheet was placed after investigation under Section 20(b)(i) and 29(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner. The petitioner came up with a prayer for release of the said vehicle, which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 22.11.2007 occasioning the present CRLMC.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle was purchased on loan and as the same has been seized and detained at the Orkel Police Station, the accused is not able to pay back the installments. It is further submitted that the accused undertakes to maintain the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and undertakes to produce the same as and when directed by the Court. Learned Counsellor the State has opposed the submission and has contended that since the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, the release of the vehicle will cause prejudice to the prosecution.

4. Admittedly the vehicle is lying at the police station without being used and subject to the vagaries of nature. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the vehicle, since it is likely to deteriorate further and will reduce in value.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made and following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444; Sunderbhal Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat while setting aside the impugned order it is directed that:

(i) The trial Court shall examine the documents produced by the petitioner and if it is satisfied that the petitioner is the owner, shall release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner for an interim period subject to the condition that he furnishes cash security of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand), property security to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) and two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and with the condition that the offending vehicle shall be produced before the trial Court as and when the Court directs to do so;

(ii) the petitioner shall not transfer or dispose of the offending vehicle to anyone else and shall not make any change in its body, colour or Engine. It is needless to say that make, colour, chassis number, and Engine number of the offending vehicle shall be furnished by the petitioner before the trial Court with an undertaking that no damage shall be caused or no part of the vehicle be substituted.

(iii) the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the trial Court that the offending vehicle shall not be used for commission of any offence; and

(iv) before giving interim custody of the offending vehicle to the petitioner, three coloured photographs of cabinet size from different angles clearly indicating registration number and other particulars of the vehicle shall be kept on file. The expenses for the photographs shall be borne by the petitioner.

6. On furnishing the aforesaid documents, the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner for an interim period subject to final decision of the case. It is made clear that in case of any allegation regarding involvement of vehicle in question in any criminal activity or in transportation of any objectionable articles, the order as to interim release of the vehicle shall stand automatically revoked and the trial Court shall have the authority to take necessary steps for seizure of the vehicle.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC is disposed of.