Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH JALPAIGURI
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Rajat Gossai – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRR 166 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 452 – Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 63(1), 60(3), 20(b)(ii)(c) – Seizer of Vehicle - Revision– Search and seizer of Contraband - Petitioner’s case is that petitioner made an agreement with Police Station-Dinhata, District-Cooch Behar, to rent out his vehicle to Rajib Barman and said Rajib Barman was using vehicle – Held, In Court view, whatever be situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at police stations for a long period – It is for Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicles, if required at any point of time – This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles – In case where vehicle is not claimed by accused, owner, or insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by court – If said vehicle is insured with insurance company then insurance company be informed by court to take possession of vehicle which is not claimed by owner or a third person – If insurance company fails to take possession, vehicles may be sold as per direction of court – Court would pass such order within a period of six months from date of production of said vehicle before court – In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared – CRR allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for setting aside of the Judgment/Order dated 07.04.2022 relating to confiscation of vehicle bearing No. WB 69A-3209, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cooch Behar (NDPS) in NDPS Case No.92 of 2020.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner made an agreement with one Rajib Barman, son of Khijen Barman of Ruiyerkuthi, Vetaguri, Police Station-Dinhata, District-Cooch Behar, Pin-736134 to rent out his vehicle to Rajib Barman and the said Rajib Barman was using the vehicle.
3. The petitioner came to know in June, 2022 from a reliable source that Rajib Barman had been entangled with a false case which was registered as Kotwali Police Station Case No.403 of 2022 dated 25.09.2020 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the same numbered as NDPS Case No.92 of 2020. The investigating authority after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Charge was framed, Trial commenced and after completion of the trial, Rajib Barman was acquitted but the vehicle bearing no. WB69A3209 has been confiscated to the State.
4. The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. There is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. He was not transporting the contraband ganja in the vehicle. He had given his vehicle on rent to one Rajib Barman for lawful purpose and the said Rajib Barman was using the vehicle. The purpose of use of the vehicle was without his knowledge or connivance.
5. It is submitted that the proceeding for confiscation may ensue in terms of Section 63(1) of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act in short), and the confiscation is to be made only after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who has any right or claim.
6. That it is a well-settled principle that if the owner of the vehicle is not an accused in that case, a separate and independent proceeding has to be drawn for confiscation in terms of the express provisions in Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act to protect an innocent owner before confiscating his vehicle or conveyance.
7. The vehicle is lying under the open sky as a result of which condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day on account of lack of maintenance and natural wear and tear. As such the Court must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before confiscation of the seized vehicle.
8. Mr. Arijit Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order for confiscation of the vehicle as passed by the learned trial court is bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside for the ends of justice.
9. Mr. Ghosh further submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. That he was not transporting the contraband ganja in the vehicle. He had given his vehicle on rent to one Rajib Barman for lawful purpose and the said Rajib Barman was using the vehicle. The purpose for which the vehicle was used was without his knowledge or connivance.
10. That the proceeding for confiscation may ensue in terms of Section 63(1) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act in short) and the confiscation only be made after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who has any right or claim over the said conveyance.
11. That the impugned order for confiscation of the vehicle is a gross abuse of the process of court.
12. That the order of the learned trial court for confiscation of the vehicle is otherwise bad in law and is thus, liable to be set aside.
13. Report dated 02.02.2023 filed by S.I Raju Roy of Kotwali P.S was considered by the trial court while passing t
The discretion available to the court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a judicial one and must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.
Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act must follow the prescribed procedural safeguards; failure to provide a hearing renders the order illegal.
A registered owner of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotics offence, who is not an accused, is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle, subject to meeting certain conditions to ensure co....
The court may order the return of seized vehicles under NDPS Act if the owner proves no involvement in the offense, subject to specific legal conditions.
An owner claiming innocence can request release of a seized vehicle under NDPS Act, provided they prove lack of knowledge about its illegal use, subject to security conditions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to decide the claim of a person regarding a seized conveyance lies with the special court under Section 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act, a....
Seized vehicles must be released to owners when there are no pending confiscation proceedings, emphasizing timely judicial action under the NDPS and Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
