M/S Anand Paper Agencies vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition. The Court held that while the seized properties are liable to be confiscated under Section 61 of the NDPS Act if the accused is found guilty, the applicant, being the owner of the truck and papers and not an accused, should be granted the release of the papers on 'supurdgi'. The Court reasoned that the trial will take a considerable time to conclude, and the applicant's ownership and non-accused status are significant factors. The Court directed the release of 106 bundles of papers to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant must undertake to produce the papers whenever directed by the Court and keep them intact until the disposal of the case. The ratio decidendi is that an owner of property, who is not an accused, can be granted interim custody of the property on 'supurdgi' even if it was used in the commission of an offence, provided they undertake to produce it when required and maintain its integrity.

Facts

The applicant, M/s Anand Paper Agencies, through its proprietor Anand Jain, filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petition challenged an order dated 8.3.2021 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Burhanpur. The Special Judge had rejected the applicant's application for the release of seized papers on 'supurdgi' (custody pending trial). The ground for rejection was that the seized papers were used to conceal contraband (Ganja), leading to the confiscation of the vehicle, papers, and contraband. The applicant, who is the owner of the vehicle and not an accused, sought the release of the papers, offering to abide by court conditions. The seized items included a truck bearing No. MP09-HH-0233 carrying 106 bundles of various types of paper worth Rs. 12,32,843/-, along with approximately 177.009 Kgs of Ganja.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized papers, which are the property of the applicant who is not an accused, can be released on 'supurdgi' during the pendency of the trial, despite being used to conceal contraband? The applicant argued that they are the owner of the vehicle and the seized papers, and have not been made an accused in the case. They are willing to comply with any terms and conditions imposed by the Court for the release of the papers. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Sundarbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Shankar Vs. State of M.P. The applicant contended that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. The respondents, including the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India through the Narcotics Control Bureau, vehemently opposed the prayer for release. While acknowledging that the properties are liable to be confiscated under Section 61 of the NDPS Act if the accused is found guilty, they did not present specific arguments against the release on 'supurdgi' beyond the initial grounds for confiscation.