The Magistrate/Special Judge has the power to consider the application for interim custody of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., and the Drug Disposal Committee does not have the authority to dispose of the vehicles seized under the N.D.P.S. Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Rajdhari Yadav against the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad in Misc. Case No.381 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections 8/20/27A/ 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Lucknow NCB, District Prayagraj whereby the application of the revisionist for release of Tata Mini Truck No. GJ 16 AU 9781 was rejected.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tata Mini Truck No. GJ 16 AU 9781 of the revisionist was being repaired by the mechanic near Naribari Police Chowki. The STF force detained his driver, helper and vehicle from there on 27.05.2021 at about 3:00 PM. Nothing was recovered from the truck of the revisionist. The recovery was made from the Eicher Mini Truck but the police let that vehicle go after getting huge amount and illegally implicated his truck by taking his truck to Police Station Shankargarh, at a distance of 50 km from the Naribari Police Chowki. From the spot nothing is shown to be recovered from his truck. After planting the alleged ganja the arresting officer badly damaged the mangoes loaded upon his vehicle and looted the cash of Rs. 25,000/-from the driver and challaned the driver and helper in the present case. He is not named in the complaint. He has neither committed any offence nor has any concern with the aforesaid case. He is wrongly and illegally being implicated in the present case on the basis of the fake recovery. The Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him according to the provisions of law. The impugned order is totally against the provisions of law, hence, the revision be allowed and the impugned order rejecting the release application of his vehicle No. GJ 16 AU 9781 be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2018, Dhirendra Singh Thapa Vs. State of U.P. and another and has argued that in that case the Court allowed the revision, impugned order was set aside, and release application was allowed, hence, on the basis of the said judgment the impugned order is prayed to be set aside.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2-NCB wherein it is narrated that the specific information with regard to the transportation of huge quantity of 'ganja', by the nominated accused persons, by the vehicle of the revisionist was received in their office at Lucknow. A team constituted to conduct search and seizure. The team so constituted intercepted the vehicle in question and nominated accused persons and recovered 975:00 kg ganja from the vehicle of revisionist. During search and seizure the officers of NCB complied with all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Memo of recovery was prepared on spot and was signed by accused persons, who were present at the time of recovery. On the national highway due to heavy traffic and security reasons it was not possible to unload mango cartons and bags of ganja. So the intercepted vehicles and the persons were taken to the Police Station Shankargarh for the proceedings of search and seizure and there is no illegality in the same. After recovery of 975:00 kg. ganja from the vehicle of the revisionist, Ganja and vehicle were seized under the N.D.P.S. Act and were deposited in malkhana of concerned police station by the order of concerned court.

5. The statement of accused persons were recorded. Several notices were sent to the revisionist as he was found the owner of the vehicle in question, but despite the service of notices, the revisionist did not appear before the investigating officer and, accordingly, the investigation with regard to the revisionist is kept open and is still pending. The court below has rightly rejected the vehicle release application of the revisi