The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers in releasing seized property, the prevention of seized assets from becoming junk, and the power to confiscate the vehicle under Section 60 of the NDPS Act after the conclusion of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the State in the Court itself, which is kept on record.

2. In the present criminal writ application preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act., Purnea, in Special Case No.12 of 2020/CIS No. 12 of 2020 (NDPS Act.) whereby the petitioner’s petition for release of his Tata Indigo Car bearing Registration No. BR-38H-2618, Chasis No. MAT6007341EPC08953 and Engine No. 475IDT14CVYP14326 seized in connection with the aforesaid case has been rejected.

3. Special Case No.12 of 2020/CIS No. 12 of 2020 (NDPS Act.) was registered on 26.06.2020 on the basis of written complaint made by Excise Inspector, Prunea.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant is Excise Inspector, Purnea. On 26.6.2020 during vehicle checking at Barsauni Toll Plaza, informant saw that one Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. BR-38H/2618 was coming towards Purnea and after seeing the police personnel, the driver made U-turn and flee away towards Dagarua. On suspicion, Informant and other police personnel chased but the driver fled away with key after parking the said vehicle. After searching before two independent witnesses recovered 1280 bottles of Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup (ESKUF Cough Syrup) containing 100 ml each i.e. total 128.00 liters. Accordingly, informant seized the aforesaid cough syrup and car and prepared seizure list in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized Tata Indigo Car. He further submits that much prior to alleged occurrence, the petitioner had given the said vehicle on lease to the accused Ansir Akhtar with condition that if anything happens in course of plying the vehicle, the authorized person(s)/driver will bear all the liabilities including any legal proceeding. Counsel further submits that during course of investigation, the prosecution/informant has found the factum of authorization true and he submitted final report against the accused Ansir Akhtar and let off the owner of the vehicle (petitioner). There was no concern to the petitioner with the affairs of vehicle since 24.03.2020. He further submits that petitioner being the real owner of the said vehicle had no knowledge about alleged transportation of the aforesaid prohibited articles. He further submits that the seized vehicle is kept in open sky and its two window glasses are also open. He has submitted that as the vehicle was also seized by the excise officials, the petitioner had filed a petition for release of the car, but the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Purnea without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, [(2002) 10 SCC 290] and General Insurance Council and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [(2010) 6 SCC 768] and also the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. the Union of India & Anr. (Cr. Misc. No. 40514 of 2016) rejected the petition, vide order dated 09.04.2021, on the ground that the said car is liable for confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act and that huge quantity of Codeine syrup was recovered from the seized car. He has submitted that due to the seizure of the car the petitioner is suffering financially and if the car is not released, the same would become junk, as it is lying in open with the Excise officials.

6. Mr. K.N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India fairly conceded that in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and General Insurance Council and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and also the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. the Union of India & Anr. (Cr. Misc. No. 40