IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Special Court has the authority to grant interim custody of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its use for illegal activities.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/RC holder of the vehicle under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura dated 10.07.2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 981/2024, having dismissed the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and release the vehicle, which was seized by the Excise Range Office in Crime No. 105/2023-24/1006IE/100606 for offences punishable under Sections 15(c), 18(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 61, 8(b), 8(c) of NDPS Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of the goods container vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14/GG-4191 and he is engaged in the profession of transportation of goods from different parts of the country and the vehicle in question was hired by the Royal India Roadways for transportation of garments. Accordingly, garments were sent along with 12 invoices from Ludhiana, Panjab to Tripura and Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. When the vehicle was passing near the jurisdiction of Shiradon check post, the vehicle was intercepted and on verification, the Excise Inspector found 10 plastic bags kept below the seat of the driver, which contained opium and Ganja, which was seized and an FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle along with the Narcotic Drugs was seized and the matter was under investigation. The driver/accused was remanded to judicial custody. Later on, the accused was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. The petitioner being the RC holder of the vehicle filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Court for interim custody of the vehicle, which came to be rejected. He filed another application before the Drugs Disposal Committee (DCC), they have also given endorsement seeking clarification from the Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the DCC is not releasing the vehicle, which has nothing to do with the offence committed by the driver of the vehicle under the NDPS Act. The vehicle in question was hired by some private party for transporting their goods. The accused/driver committed an offence by transporting the drugs, without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Yet, the DDC is not releasing the vehicle. The petitioner has placed reliance of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 623/2020 holding that the Courts have power to release the vehicle for interim custody. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

5. Learned HCGP has objected to this petition and has filed a report from the Investigating Officer, whereas he has raised objections that, if the vehicle is released, he my use it for commission of other offences, he may use it for absconding and he may sell it. This would delay the proceedings and hence, he prays to dismiss this application.

6. Having heard both the counsel and perused the records, the following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Sessions Judge being the Special Court under the NDPS Act, is empowered to release the vehicle in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 623/2020?

(ii) Whether there is any bar for releasing the vehicle by the Court or Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. (At present Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023).

7. The accused/driver of the lorry, who took the lorry bearing registration No. RJ-14/GG-4191 from Panjab to Tamil Nadu for delivering garments as per the 12 invoices produced, was intercepted near the Shiradon check post by the Excise Department and they found opium and Ganja, which were hid under the seat of the driver. While registering FIR and in the Panchanama, the accused/driver revealed that he was transporting the narcotic drugs without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, it appears that the vehicle in question