S.452 CrPC | Futile To Keep Seized Vehicles At Police Stations For Long Periods, Courts Can Pass Appropriate Orders By Taking Bond, Security: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has underscored,

“It would be a futile exercise to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Courts vested with the power to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time”.

Background of the Case:

The case involved the petitioner who was accused of animal cruelty and pleaded guilty. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, while concluding the trial, ordered the forfeiture of his vehicle to the (SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY AGAINST ANIMALS) SPCA under Rule 8 of the Notification Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

The petitioner challenged this order before the Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch. However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court.

High Court's Observations:

After meticulously analysing the legal provisions governing the disposal of case property, particularly focusing on Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court observed that the said provision governs the disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial and also empowers the court to order destruction, confiscation, or delivery of the property to a person claiming possession.

However Justice Nargal added,

“…The court under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot decide any claim to manage any property or any title to the property, but shall dispose of the property on the basis of possession”.

Citing precedents, including the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, the court highlighted the objective of expeditiously disposing of case property to avoid unnecessary retention by the court or police.

Moreover, the Court referenced Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Suryanarayanan & Anr to underscore that the rightful owner of seized property should be entitled to its return unless there is a dispute regarding ownership.

Highlighted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have applied Section 452 of the CrPC to dispose of the vehicle based on possession and the subsequent avoidance of this issue on part of the appellate court Justice Nargal recorded,

“..it has escaped the eye of the appellate authority that the said provision has not been relied at the time of confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch and rather, the appellate authority instead of quashing the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch to that extent, has instead upheld the said order by placing reliance on Section 452 Cr.PC”.

Addressing the contention raised by the petitioner regarding Rule 8 of the Notification Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules 2017, the Court clarified that the said rule pertains only to the status of animals upon disposal of litigation and does not extend to vehicles or other non-animal property.

“Rule 8 of the Notification Supra, which pertains only to the status of the animal upon disposal of litigation and could not have been applied for forfeiture of the vehicle. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch accordingly, is flawed”, the bench remarked.

In light of these observations, the court quashed both the orders passed by the lower courts and remanded the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch. The Magistrate was directed to re-examine the issue both in conformity with Rule 8 of the said rules and the mandate of Section 452 of the CrPC.

Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 54

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment