The main legal point established in the judgment is the trial court's power to release a seized vehicle in interim custody under the NDPS Act, the need to prevent the vehicle's deterioration, and the owner's right to interim custody until the trial's completion.

ORDER :

Heard on the question of admission.

The applicant has filed the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), District-Neemuch in Special Case No. 44/2019, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for seeking interim custody of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. RJ-43-TA-0196 on supurdginama has been rejected.

2. The applicant is the only legal heir of the deceased Balvantaram who was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-43-TA-0196 that was seized in connection with Crime No.269/2019 registered at Police Station-Jawad, District-Neemuch in respect of offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. As per the corresponding version, the accused Hadmanaram and Pukhraj was carrying 60 kg of Poppystraw in the aforesaid vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the legal heir of the registered owner of 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.

4. 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. 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.

5. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) AIR SCW 5301 has held that the articles seized in any criminal case are not to be kept for long time at Police Station and in any case for not more than 15 days to one month and the owner of the article should not suffer because of its remaining unused or misappropriated at Police Station. Undisputedly, the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day-by-day, as the same is lying open to sky and under the heat of sun and rains. The vehicle is loosing its value day-by- day due to lack of maintenance, natural wear and tear and passing of time.

6. 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 i