ORDER

28.02.2024 Heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State.

2. This is an application under Section 482/401 of the Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No.105/2022 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for seeking zimma of the TATA Truck bearing registration No.MN019912 was rejected.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that a TATA Truck bearing registration No.MN019912 was seized in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No.105/2022 as large quantity of narcotic substances were recovered from the said vehicle. The present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, in question. The petitioner had prayed before the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong Diphu praying to give zimma of the said vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was lying in the police station for about one year. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and considering the nature of offence rejected the prayer to give temporary zimma of the vehicle to the petitioner, who is the registered owner.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, but he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He had no knowledge regarding carrying of the narcotic substances in his vehicle. The driver and the handyman of the vehicle have already been arrested in connection with the alleged offence. As the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, he may be allowed to take the zimma of the said vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of theft etc., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs.

State Of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held as under:

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such used vehicles in the police stations for a long period of time. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required, at any point of time. This can be done, pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

In case where a vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured by the Insurance Company then the Insurance Company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the Insurance Company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has submitted that the present petitioner is one of the accused in the alleged offence and he was not available during investigation. The petitioner took active part in the alleged offence of carrying the narcotics substances in his vehicle from Dimapur to Guwahati.

Under such backdrop, zimma of the vehicle may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

7. As regards the seizure of any article or thing the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply if it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act. On a bare perusal of the various provisions of the NDPS Act, it appears that there is no specific provision debarring the r