A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to its bonafide owner on interim custody pending trial, provided no confiscation proceedings are pending.

ORDER

Date : 13.09.2024 Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong in NDPS Case No. 33/2023, rejecting the prayer for zimma of a truck bearing registration No. NL-01-AD-8728 along with its keys seized in connection with Khatkhati PS Case No. 15/2023, under Section 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR has been lodged at Khatkhati PS to the effect that on 19.02.2023 based on a source information that a large quantity of narcotic drugs were coming from Manipur to Bokajan in a truck bearing No. NL-01 AD-8728 and accordingly, the said truck was intercepted. On being searched, around 4.109 kgs of suspected heroin was recovered from a hidden chamber of the said truck. Thereafter, a case was registered vide Khatkhati PS Case No. 15/2023 under Section 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been laid against three accused persons Shoaib Aktar, Md. Ikbal and Abdul Gani but not against the present petitioner and trial started in the Special Court, Karbi Anglong and charge was also framed against the aforesaid accused persons.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck bearing No. NL-01 AD-8728. It was purchased from finance in the year 2019. The petitioner has no knowledge that the driver and the helper of his truck were involved in transporting of contrabands in his truck. It is further submitted that the said truck is the only source of income of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had approached the learned trial court praying for zimma of the said vehicle but the prayer for zimma was rejected.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial court without taking into consideration of the fact that charge-sheet has been laid and charges have been framed against the arrested accused persons, rejected the zimma petition in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thereby caused a serious miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the trial court miserably failed to consider Section 451 Cr.P.C. which provides power to the criminal Court to give zimma of the seized articles after submission of charge-sheet. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seized vehicle has been kept in the open air and as such there is every possibility to cause damage to it. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambala vs State of Gujrat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it was held that power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously, promptly and judicially. It is of no use to keep such seized vehicle at a police station for a long period.

7. Learned counsel further submits that there is no bar in the NDPS Act to release the vehicle in interim custody of its rightful owner till conclusion of the trial in confiscation proceeding because otherwise the vehicle would turn into scrap/junk if it is kept in the campus of the police station for a long time. And it would be neither in the interest of the owner nor of the State.

In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following case law:

(i) Bhola Singh @ Ayush Singh vs State of Bihar reported in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40912/2016.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state submits that the seized vehicle which is allegedly involved in commission of the offence under the NDPS Act which is liable for confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act and hence, cannot be released even to the bonafide owner of the vehicle.

9. It is further submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated against the s