Interim custody of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be granted to the owner if ownership is not disputed and there is no bar under the NDPS Act on the Courts to order for interim custody of a vehicle which is seized in a crime registered for the offences under the said Act.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2021 in crime No.51 of 2018 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- I Additional District and Sessions Judge - Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam whereby the petition filed under Section 457 seeking interim custody of Pulsar 150 DTS-1 Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 31 EN 7278 was dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject vehicle which is seized in connection with crime No.51 of 2018 of Dumbriguda Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 on the allegation of its usage in transporting 26 Kgs of dry ganja. Pursuant to registration of the crime, the petitioner approached the Court below by filing a petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. but the same was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having purchased the subject vehicle by availing finance is facing lot of hardship and inconvenience due to its seizure. He submits that the vehicle was taken by the accused for hire and thereafter they disappeared. On coming to know about the seizure of the vehicle the petitioner approached the Court below, but the Court below erred in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has knowledge about transportation of the contraband. He submits that if the vehicle is kept idle for long time, it will get damaged and this Court in similar circumstances granted interim custody of the vehicles by observing that interim custody of the vehicle can be given to the owner if ownership is not disputed. Hence, prays to consider the case of the petitioner.

5. The Court below, while passing the order impugned observed that Section 60 of the NDPS Act connotes that the Narcotic Drug and conveyance used for carrying the same shall be confiscated to the state if the offence is prove and opined that the petitioner did not point out any circumstances which make the Court to believe that the petitioner would be proved to be innocent of the offence even after analyzing the evidence that would be adduced at the time of trial. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled for interim custody of the subject vehicle as it was seized while transporting 26 kgs of dry ganja.

6. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

7. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order delivery of the property to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit.

8. In the presen