Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Kishan Singh, son of Sri Madhu Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Petn. No.8 of 2018
Decided on : 16-03-2018
Section 482 - Release of Seized Vehicle - NDPS Act, 1985, Section 60(3), Section 63 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which provide for the confiscation and disposal of conveyances used in carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The court interpreted these provisions to protect the rights of innocent owners and outlined the procedure for release and disposal of seized vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a special petition for releasing a vehicle seized in connection with a case under Section 353 of the IPC and 21(C) of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle, leading to the challenge in this criminal petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the registered owner, had no knowledge of the vehicle being used for carrying narcotic substances. The court interpreted the provisions of the NDPS Act and directed the release of the seized vehicle to its registered owner on specific terms and conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicle under the NDPS Act, considering the rights of the registered owner and the procedure for confiscation and disposal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which provide for the protection of innocent owners and the procedure for release and disposal of seized vehicles.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the release of the seized vehicle to its registered owner on specific terms and conditions.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the interpretation of the NDPS Act provisions and the procedure for the release and disposal of seized vehicles are as follows:
The NDPS Act, specifically Sections 60(3) and 63, provides protections for innocent owners of conveyances used in carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The law stipulates that such conveyances are liable to confiscation unless the owner proves they had no knowledge or connivance in the use of the vehicle for illegal purposes (!) (!) .
The procedure for confiscation involves a trial process where the court determines liability and whether the seized articles or conveyances are liable to confiscation. This process includes a mandatory waiting period of at least one month from the date of seizure, during which the owner can claim rights and produce evidence (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of innocent owners by allowing them to claim their conveyance within a specified time frame and by requiring the court to hear such claims before any confiscation order is issued (!) (!) .
The provisions also specify that if the seized article or conveyance is liable to speedy decay or sale would benefit the owner, it can be directed to be sold at any time, but only after the court's decision on liability and confiscation (!) (!) .
The notification issued under Section 52A of the NDPS Act authorizes the Central Government to specify the manner of disposal of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and conveyances, considering factors like hazardous nature and storage constraints. The process involves preparing an inventory, applying to a Magistrate, and obtaining approval for disposal (!) (!) .
The authority to dispose of seized conveyances is primarily vested in the Drug Disposal Committee, which can sell the conveyance through tender or auction after confiscation proceedings are complete. The court does not have the authority to direct disposal unless the confiscation process has been finalized and the owner’s rights have been addressed (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that vehicles used in the commission of an offence are to be kept under proper conditions, and their disposal should be conducted promptly to prevent decay, theft, or damage. However, until the trial concludes and a confiscation order is made, the owner has the right to seek interim custody of the vehicle, provided they claim ownership within a specified period and furnish security (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where the owner claims ownership and the vehicle is seized, the court may release the vehicle to the owner on certain conditions, including the furnishing of a bail bond and undertaking to produce the vehicle when required. The owner must also maintain the vehicle in good condition and not transfer ownership or rights during the pendency of the proceedings (!) (!) .
If no owner claims the vehicle within the stipulated time, the court may direct the Drug Disposal Committee to dispose of the vehicle by sale, ensuring proper procedures are followed to prevent misuse or loss of value (!) .
In summary, the legal framework aims to balance the need for effective enforcement against narcotics offences with the protection of innocent owners' rights, establishing clear procedures for the interim custody, claim, and final disposal of seized vehicles.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 15.01.2018, Annexure-3 to this petition.
2. The petitioner herein filed a special petition for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-07-1530 seized in connection with Belonia P.S. Case No.2018BLN003 under Section 353 of the IPC and 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [the NDPS Act in short]. In the complaint, it has been alleged that during patrolling of Nathpara under Belonia police station, the Coy Commander had noticed two persons unloading cartons/box from the pickup van. When the BSF patrolling party advanced towards the said vehicle, they stopped the unloading and desperately started pelting stones towards the BSF patrolling party. Those persons did not pay any heed to the request of the BSF personnel. Even after a thorough search made in the said area the BSF patrolling party could not locate and apprehend those persons, but they had seized the said two cartons with narcotic substances [codeine] and the vehicle being Maxi Truck bearing registration No.TR-07-1530, 04 stroke engine, Make-Mahindra, Engine No.GLE4E56797, Chassis No.MA1ZP2GLKE3E4512. It appears from the record that after seizure, the seizure list was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate of the concerned area. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle. The petitioner produced the seizure list dated 09.01.2018 in support of the seizure of the said vehicle by the police. By the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, the Special Judge, South Tripura, Belonia has observed that ‘further, the IO of the case has filed an application for confiscating the vehicle and such application shall be taken up after one month from the date of seizure and shall have to be disposed of after hearing the registered owner following the mandate of Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act.’ On such premise, the petition was rejected.
Section 60(3) of the NDPS act provides that:
“(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2[or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”
Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides the procedure relating to confiscation. For purpose of reference, the relevant statutory provisions are extracted hereunder:
“(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.
(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly. Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, 1[controlled substance,] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
