Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Ajeem Husain - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 37387 of 2022
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Criminal Procedure code,1973 - Section 482 - N.D.P.S. Act - Section 8-C/20-b (ii) (e) and 8-A/28 - Motor Vehicle Act - Section 207 - Motor vehicle – Ganja recovered – Seized - Applicant is recorded owner of the impugned vehicle insured by the O.I.C., which was searched and captured by the Police and three quintal 96 K.G. Ganja was recovered in 198 packets and hence vehicle was ceased under Section 207 M.V. Act and was also taken to Police Station - whether any proceeding was initiated in pursuant to the report dated 20.4.2022 or not. - whether the applicant has been able to establish the circumstances and grounds enumerated in the later part of the Sub Section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S Act or not - There is also a reference of Section 207 of M.V. Act that vehicle has been ceased under Section 207 of M.V. Act, for which reports may be obtained and a release application may be moved before concerned court or before concerned R.T.O and fine amount imposed (if any) under Section 207 of M.V. Act, may be deposited.[Para 14]
-
Finding of Court: Court is of considered view that in such a situation concerned court has right to dispose of aforesaid release application considering all facts and circumstances of the case and also as to whether applicant has been able to establish circumstances and grounds enumerated in later part of Sub Section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S Act or not - There is also a reference of Section 207 of M.V. Act that vehicle has been ceased under Section 207 of M.V. Act, for which the reports may be obtained and a release application may be moved before concerned court or before concerned R.T.O and fine amount imposed (if any) under Section 207 of M.V. Act, may be deposited.
Result: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S Act) / A.S.J. F.T.C. (Crime Against Women) in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022 – State Vs. Zubair and Others, under Section 8-C/20-b (ii) (e) and 8-A/28 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, by which the release application of Truck No. U.P.22-T-3585 has been rejected and also for prayer to direct the Trial Court to release the aforesaid truck.
3. In brief, facts of the case are that the applicant is the recorded owner of the impugned vehicle insured by the O.I.C., which was searched and captured by the Police on 26.03.2022 and three quintal 96 K.G. Ganja was recovered in 198 packets and hence the vehicle was ceased under Section 207 M.V. Act and was also taken to the Police Station. The applicant moved an application for release of the impugned vehicle, which was rejected by the learned Trial Judge, on the ground that a report has been forwarded by the concerned Police Station for confiscation of the impugned vehicle in favour of the State.
4. Being aggrieved, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant.
5. On behalf of the State, S.I. Harpal Singh has filed counter affidavit that the aforesaid Truck was used in illegal trafficking of contraband narcotic substances and for confiscation of the same, a report dated 20.04.2022 has been sent to the District Magistrate, Budaun. The learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the release application. The application is not maintainable, hence the same be rejected.
6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant, denying the contends of the counter affidavit with contention that applicant is the owner of the vehicle and if any contraband is received/recovered from the vehicle, the truck driver will be responsible as it is not possible for the applicant to monitor the transportation of his vehicle all the time.
7. The condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day-by-day. The applicant is ready to give undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when it would be required or ordered by the court. Though, a report has been sent for confiscation of the vehicle on 22.04.2022, but till date no notice with regard to the proceeding of confiscation of the vehicle has been received. Even an application under the Right to Information Act was moved by the applicant on 14.10.2022, but there is no reply to that as to whether any proceeding was initiated in pursuant to the report dated 20.4.2022 or not. The applicant was neither present when the vehicle was taken into possession by the police nor he was accused as per F.I.R and it is the driver, who is responsible and who has been released on bail. The applicant is not a person of criminal in nature, he is a businessman and does business very fairly. It is the first time when his vehicle has been ceased by the Police with contraband substances. Hence the application be allowed and the impugned truck be released in favour of the applicant during the pendency of the trial.
8. Learned counsel of either of the parties has relied on Manak Lal Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2019 JCC Online M.P. 2031, without showing name of the party which has no relevancy in the matter.
9. It would be proper to reproduce Section 60 of the N.D.P.S Act, which is as under : -
(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 respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation.
(2). Any narco
If the vehicle has not been confiscated and no proceeding of confiscation could be started, even after a laps of one year, it is open to the concerned Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Chapter....
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.
The court emphasized the liability of vehicles used in carrying narcotic substances to confiscation, while also considering the owner's innocence and the practical implications of indefinite seizure.
The court held that a seized vehicle may be released pending trial if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use, as per NDPS Act and CrPC provisions.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the balancing of the statutory mandate of confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act with the practical considerations of the petitioner's ne....
The court emphasized that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would not serve any purpose and that the owner, who had not been implicated as an accused, should be allowed to reclaim the vehicle.
The court ruled that vehicles involved in narcotics offenses should not be released during trial, emphasizing strict enforcement of confiscation provisions under the NDPS Act.
The NDPS Act mandates strict conditions for the interim custody of seized vehicles, especially when the owner is implicated in the offence.
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
