SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J.
Ajay Pratap Verma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MCRC-43959 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Dubey
For the Respondents: Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer

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, and interim custody should not be denied solely based on the potential confiscation under Section 60.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Interim Custody - Section 8B, 20, 25 - 52A, 60(3), 63 - Notification dated 16/01/2015 - The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the seized car bearing registration No. M.H./12-R.F.-9595 in favor of the applicant, the registered owner, on certain terms and conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, as the registered owner of a car seized in connection with an offense under the NDPS Act, filed a petition seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The Special Judge rejected the application based on the ongoing confiscation proceeding under Section 52 of the NDPS Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reasons for rejecting the applicant's application were not correct, as no confiscation proceeding had been initiated regarding the seized vehicle. The court also highlighted the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and a notification regarding the disposal of seized drugs and conveyances.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant, as the registered owner of the seized vehicle, was entitled to interim custody despite the ongoing confiscation proceeding under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized 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. It also noted that interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle solely because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the seized car in favor of the applicant, the registered owner, on specific terms and conditions, including the furnishing of a surety and an undertaking.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29/09/2020 passed by Special Judge, under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") Rewa in Case No. 386/2020, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the applicant's application filed u/s. 457 of Cr.P.C. to get the interim custody of the Car bearing registration No. M.H./12-R.F./9595, seized by the Police Station Atraila, District Rewa in Crime No. 125/2020 registered for the offence Punishable under Section 8B, 20, 25 of the NDPS Act.

2. It is alleged that the Police seized Car bearing registration No. M.H./12-R.F./9595 in connection with Crime No. 125/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 8B, 20, 25 of the NDPS Act. On that, the applicant, who is the registered owner of the said car bearing registration No. M.H./12-R.F./9595 filed an application under Section 457/451 of Cr.P.C. before Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rewa for getting interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge rejected the application vide order dated 29/09/2020. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. M.H./12-R.F./9595, so he is entitled to get the custody of said vehicle. He further submitted that learned Special Judge committed mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant only on the basis that the proceeding of confiscation of said vehicle under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. is going on. In this regard, counsel has relied on the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, whereby the Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicle at Police Stations for long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee as well as security for return of said vehicle, if required at any point of time. Hence counsel prayed that the application be allowed.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the said vehicle was seized by the police under the NDPS Act, therefore, looking to the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Notification dated 16/01/2015 in which it is mentioned that seized conveyance will also be disposed of by the Drug Disposal Committee, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the applicant's application.

5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by both the parties. It appears from the record that learned Special Judge rejected the applicant's prayer only on the ground that the proceeding of confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No. MH/12-RF/9595 under Section 52 of the NDPS Act is going on. But the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge for rejecting the applicant's application does not appear to be correct.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State fairly admitted that no confiscation proceeding under Section 52 of the NDPS Act has been started regarding car bearing registration No. MH/12-RF/9595 as yet.

7. Even otherwise, the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the notification dated 16/01/2015 reads as under:-

    "Section 52A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. It reads:-

"Section 52A : Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcot

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top