Point of Law: There is no proposition of law that once the vehicle is seized for commission of the offence under Section of NDPS Act, the interim custody cannot be allowed, rather it should be disposed of expeditiously and judiciously so that the owner of the vehicle would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation and the Police should be required to keep the vehicle in safe custody.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 77/2021 is impugned in this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Swarup Dutta seeking custody of Tata LPT 3718 CR BS-IV 10X2, bearing registration No. WB-91-2829.

3. Heard Ms. L. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing counsel for the NCB.

4. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 21.09.2021, a report was called for from the NCB in respect of the seized Truck. Today, Ms. P. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel for the NCB has produced the report.

5. We have perused the report.

6. It is stated that the registered owner of the vehicle is the present petitioner Shri Swarup Dutta as per the Registration certificate. He purchased the said Truck on 26.03.2018 for transportation business by paying a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash and for remaining amount he took loan of Rs. 24,30,069/- from HDB finance service, Siliguri and he was paying installment of Rs. 65,600/-. Thereafter, he sold the Truck bearing registration No. WB-91-2829 to Mursid Ali, S/o Saiyab SK, on 14.11.2019, and as per agreement of sale deed, remaining installment will be paid by Mursid Ali, but Mursid Ali informed Swarup Dutta that he could not deposit the installment of the Truck, so the present petitioner wanted to sale the Truck to another party who is ready to deposit the remaining installment. It is to be mentioned here that Swarup Dutta, the present petitioner could not execute any sale deed with Mr. Mursid Ali. Thereafter, on his request Mr. Swarup Dutta signed another Sale Deed, to sale the Truck to Abdul Kalam, Silchar S/o Sorubh Ali R/o Village Choucha, P.O. Gangarghose, P.S. Baisi, District Purnia, Bihar and as per the Sale Deed, the Truck sold @ Rs. 3,20,000/- and the remaining installment will be paid by Abdul Kalam. Thereafter, he handed over the Truck to Abdul Kalam and Abdul Kalam handed over the Truck to Md. Mokim and Khusbu Rahman to deliver rice from Raiganj to Agartala on 25th January but, unfortunately the Truck was found in trafficking of 117.650 Kg of Ganja and thereafter, the NCB has seized the Truck in connection with NCB Case No. 03/2021 on 02.02.2020. Further, it appears from the report that investigation of the case is already completed and the I.O. has submitted the final complaint of this case before the learned Court below on 28.07.2021. It also appears from the report that the I.O. has objected in releasing the vehicle as it was being used for trafficking of Ganja.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle was seized on 02.02.2020 and since then more than 1½ year elapsed and it is exposing to sun and rain and its value is diminishing day by day and the petitioner has purchased the same on installment and it was seized in connection with this case, the installment could not be paid and the Truck was the only source of income and therefore, it is contended to release the vehicle in interim custody of the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel NCB has opposed the petition, on the ground, that the said vehicle was used for trafficking commercial quantity of Ganja and it may be used again for trafficking, if released on interim custody to the petitioner.

9. It is to be mentioned here that Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with releasing seized vehicle in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 718, held that:-

“We do not think it necessary to keep the vehicle in the compound of the court indefinitely for a very long t