IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Rajendra Kumar Verma, J.
Golu @ Nirmal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1848 of 2020
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Supurdginama - Release of Seized Vehicle - NDPS Act - Section 397, Section 401, Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a revision against the rejection of the application for handing over the seized motorcycle under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. The vehicle was seized in connection with an NDPS Act offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle may be handed over to the applicant on supurdginama as the applicant is the registered owner and the trial is likely to take a long time. The court also cited precedents to support the release of the vehicle in interim custody.
Issues: The main issue was whether the seized vehicle could be released to the registered owner during the trial of an NDPS Act offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the absence of a provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial court to release the vehicle in interim custody. Precedents and legal provisions were cited to support the release of the vehicle to the owner during the trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and directed the release of the seized vehicle to the applicant on specified terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The applicant has filed the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Session Judge, Ujjain (MP), in Special case No.2/2020, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for handing over the motorcycle (Pulsar Bike) bearing registration No.MP-13-ET-1921 on supardginama has been rejected.
3. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-13-ET-1921 that was seized in connection with Crime No.322/2019 registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain in respect of offence punishable under Section 8/21(B), 29 of the NDPS Act. As per corresponding version, applicant was carrying 27 gram smack in the aforesaid vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered owner by the aforesaid vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. It is further submitted that the said vehicle which is now kept in the police station, be released on supurdginama otherwise due to its non-use, the same would be useless after sometime. There is no need to keep the said vehicle in custody. He further submitted that learned Judge committed mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant and not giving the said vehicle in custody.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant's vehicle was found to be involved in a serious crime registered under NDPS Act and if the vehicle in question is handed over, the same would be used for commission of another offence. Accused/applicant is not entitled to get vehicle on Supurdginama.
6. Learned counsel for the State also submits that aforesaid vehicle cannot be given on supurdginama under Section 52(A)(ii) of NDPS Act, in view of the principle laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and others, Criminal Appeal No.652/2012 and Section 52(A) (ii) of NDPS Act.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question may be handed over to the applicant on supurdginama as applicant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time. No purpose would be served to keep the vehicle in question parked in the police station wherein it would run that risk of deterioration on account of weather and other facts.
8. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam Vs. State of M.P. 2005(2) ANJ MP 351, that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Tripura, Agartala in the case of Sri Sankar Das Vs. State of Tripura (Cri. Petition No.9 of 2018, decided on 16.3.2018) has held in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 as under :-
"[9] Substantively, directions in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) are concerned with the storage and disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, in Para-31.2 of the said decision in respect of storage, the reference has been made to conveyance as well. Similarly, in the notification dated 16.01.2015 the provision has been made for disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, controlled substances or the conveyances under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Clause 4 of the said notification provides as under:
"4. Manner of disposal - (1) Where any narcotic drug
The court established the principle that the trial court has the power to release a seized vehicle to the registered owner in interim custody, citing the absence of a provision in the NDPS Act restri....
The court ruled that a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released on interim custody unless the owner is implicated in the unlawful use, affirming the application of Sections 451 and 457 of th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court has the power to release a seized vehicle in interim custody, protecting the rights of the owner and the value of the vehic....
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 Special Court under the NDPS Act can grant interim custody of seized vehicles, provided the owner proves non-involvement in the offence, despite potential confiscation.
The NDPS Act allows for the interim release of a seized vehicle unless the owner is implicated, provided due process is followed.
The ownership of a vehicle seized under NDPS Act must be respected if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use; interim custody can be granted subject to conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.