S.451 CrPC | Custody Of Property Subject Matter Of Offence Should Not Be Retained Unless "Absolutely Necessary": Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court recently observed that the power under Section 451 CrPC regarding custody and disposal of property involved in any offence should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed,"As the seizure of the vehicle by the police amounts to its entrustment to a government servant, the idea is that the vehicle should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it seizes. This would serve dual purpose. The owner of the vehicle would not suffer because of its remaining unused and the court or the police would not be required to keep the vehicle in safe custody."The Petitioner herein had sought release of a bus owned by him which was involved in the case of kidnapping and rape of a minor. The trial court had refused relief, stating that the vehicle was a vital piece of evidence and would be required for identification during the trial in the same condition.Before the High Court, the Petitioner contended that the bus was his only source of income.The State also filed an affidavit mentioning that a seizure memo of all the items seized including the vehicle was duly prepared in the presence of witnesses and photographs were taken by the Investigating Officer, both of the interior and the exterior of the bus as well as the alleged place where the alleged offence had been committed. Statement of all seizure witnesses were recorded and a forensic examination of the bus was also conducted. Investigation was complete and charge-sheet was filed in June 2022.In view of the above the Court noted that balance of convenience would be to allow the release of the vehicle to the registered owner in terms of Section 451 CrPC. The object is that where the vehicle (the property) which has been the subject matter of an 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, it said.Regarding the concern of trial court that the vehicle would be required for identification during the trial, the Court directed that the same can be achieved by directing the petitioner not to dispose the vehicle or to modify or change the colour of the vehicle to ensure that the identification of the vehicle during the trial is not hampered with until the completion of trial and without obtaining the specific direction of the Special Judge.Accordingly, the petition was allowed.Case Title: Pema Temphel Bhutia v. State of SikkimCitation: 2022 LiveLaw ( Sik) 5Click Here To Read/Download Order

S.451 CrPC | Custody Of Property Subject Matter Of Offence Should Not Be Retained Unless "Absolutely Necessary": Sikkim High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags