The NDPS Act mandates strict conditions for the interim custody of seized vehicles, especially when the owner is implicated in the offence.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with Jaigaon Police Station Case No. 57 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020 under the provisions of S.22(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act), present application under S.482 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred.

2. By the impugned order, learned court below has been pleased to reject the petitioner's prayer for releasing the vehicle seized in connection with the said case. The petitioner contended that on 18.02.2020, the SI of Police lodged complaint stating that on the basis of source information complainant along with other police personnel went to the spot and intercepted one vehicle being WB 16 AF 3458 Hyundai i20 along with driver and two other persons sitting in the back seat and it is also alleged that 320 bottles of caugh syrup containing narcotic substances was recovered from the dikki of said vehicle and three persons were arrested and aforesaid criminal case has been started.

3. The petitioner submits that she is the owner of said vehicle and she has valid permit and after seizure the vehicle is lying in the open space of the police station and due to delay in trial, the condition of the vehicle is getting deteriorated day by day. The petitioner accordingly moved an application before learned Special Court with a prayer to release the said vehicle but the court below after hearing the said application was pleased to reject the said prayer by the order impugned, quoting S.60(3) of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was in her matrimonial home at Siliguri and her brother took the vehicle and the petitioner is not liable for the said offence. He further submits that huge amount of instalment of the said vehicle is pending.

5. In this context, he relied upon a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Golu @ Nirmal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed on May 12, 2022 and contended that there is no express bar contained in the NDPS Act for grant of interim custody as contained in S.52(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and as such, merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under S.60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be said that once the vehicle is seized under S.60 of the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted, since the relevant provisions of NDPS Act are not inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In this context, he also relied the judgment of Sundar Bhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujrat (2002 Supp (3) SCR 39) case and contended that owner of the vehicle would not suffer for long pendency of the proceeding.

7. He further relied upon another judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kapil Jha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh delivered on January 27, 2022 and contended that seized conveyance is to be sold by way of tender or auction but such disposal can only be possible after the confiscation proceeding is complete without confiscation, the disposal of seized vehicle cannot be undertaken. Accordingly, he prayed for return of the seized vehicle.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State raised strong objection and referred S.60(3) of the NDPS Act and S.63 of the Act and contended that Sundar Bhai Ambala Desai's case is not applicable in the present context. The NDPS Act has laid down special provision for confiscation and as such, the seizure under the said Act is not guided either by