IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
Janardan Yadav son of Late Binu Yadav @ Binod Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through its Sr. Intelligence Officer and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.642 of 2021
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Narcotic Drugs - Confiscation of Vehicle - Sections 20/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision application against the order rejecting the release of his motorcycle, seized in a case related to the possession of ganja in a Bolero vehicle. The petitioner claimed ownership of the motorcycle and argued against its deterioration in police custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the motorcycle, owned by the petitioner, was being kept in open space at the police station since 2018, leading to potential deterioration. The court set aside the previous order and directed the release of the motorcycle to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Issues: Ownership of the seized motorcycle, applicability of confiscation proceedings, and the proper custody of the property pending trial were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted and applied Section 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to determine the custody and release of the seized motorcycle. The court emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of powers under these provisions to prevent deterioration of seized property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, set aside the previous order, and directed the release of the motorcycle to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
The present revision application has been filed against the order, dated 08.08.2019, passed, by the learned 14th dditional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Special Case No. 84 of 2018, arising out of Mokama Police Station Case No. 205 of 2018, dated 01.08.2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, whereby the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for releasing his Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle, having no registration number at the time of seizure, but later on, he got registration number, i.e. BR 09AA/1487, in favour of the petitioner pending trial or confiscation proceeding.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present revision application, is that on the basis of written report submitted by Md. Kaisar Alam, Inspector and Station House Officer of Mokama Police Station, Mokama Police Station Case No. 205 of 2018 was registered, stating therein that while he, along with other police personnel, were going towards Begusarai and on the way, they overtook one Bolero vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR-09G/4762 and thereafter the driver of the said car and one motorcycle, who was allegedly escorting the said Bolero vehicle, tried to flee away in suspicious manner, but the police party, after chasing them, stopped the vehicles and asked the persons sitting therein as to why they were trying to flee away, then the apprehended accused persons disclosed that there is ganja in the bolero vehicle. Upon search of the Bolero vehicle, the police party recovered about 32 kgs of ganja, kept inside the bolero vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of the seized Splendor Plus motorcycle, having Registration Number BR 09AA/1487. He further submits that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle and no ganja was recovered from the motorcycle and/or conscious possession of the petitioner. In support of his ownership, the petitioner has annexed the Insurance Certificate at Annexure-1 series. He further submits that the confiscation proceeding has not been initiated as yet and in view of Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the confiscation proceeding may not be initiated till the conclusion of the trial. He further submits that the motorcycle in question is kept in an open space in the police station and is subject to deterioration and losing its road worthiness on daily basis.
4. Learned Counsel, assailing the order of learned District Court, submits that the learned District Court has failed to appreciate the legal provisions enshrined under Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, as well as the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Jai Kishan Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 2021 (1) BLJ 374.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner for release of the motorcycle in his favour during pendency of the trial and/or confiscation proceeding and submits that petitioner was escorting the bolero vehicle, having knowledge about the Psychotropic Substance being kept inside the bolero vehicle.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties concerned and have also gone through the provisions prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
7. Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, reads as follows:-
(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in resp
General Insurance Council and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Jai Kishan Kumar v. Union of India
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Another
The court emphasized the prompt and judicious exercise of powers under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to ensure the proper custody....
The Special Court under the NDPS Act can grant interim custody of seized vehicles, provided the owner proves non-involvement in the offence, despite potential confiscation.
The court established that while the statutory burden on the owner to save the seized conveyance from confiscation had not been discharged, the release on superdari of the impounded vehicle was maint....
When ownership of a seized vehicle is not in dispute, the court should exercise its powers under S. 497 and S. 503 BNSS to release the vehicle on conditions to prevent it from decaying in custody, ra....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.