The court ruled that a seized vehicle used in drug trafficking remains with authorities until the owner discharges the reverse burden of proof, emphasizing the safeguarding of evidence for trial.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Sr. SC, DRI.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.062025 passed in Departmental Case No.07/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-2025 rejecting the Zimma of the said vehicle by the learned Sessions/Special Judge – Cachar, Silchar.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated:-

That, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Silchar Sub-Regional Unit, Silchar, acting on specific intelligence shared by DRI Guwahati Zonal Unit, had intercepted the impugned Mahindra TUV300 T8 MHA vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 02 Z2315 at approximately 20:45 hours on 03.02.2025 at the Ramnagar area of Cachar District of Assam when the vehicle was on its way to Silchar from Aizawl, assisted by Assam Rifles Personnel and in presence of independent witnesses. At the time of interception, the said vehicle was found to be proceeding towards Silchar from Aizwal.

That, rummaging of the said vehicle conducted under videography in the presence of the driver, Panchas and Assam Rifles personnel had resulted in recovery of 9 rectangular-sized packets from the body cavity of the said vehicle, out of which 8 packets were found to contain methamphetamine tablets, and one packet contained a 9 mm Sig Sauer Brand Pistol along with two magazines and 30 rounds of live 9mm ammunition and a case registered vide Seizure Case No. 07/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-25 dated 04.02.2025.

4. In course of the recording of his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the said driver stated that he was introduced to the present petitioner by the person name Lelen, who deals with the supply of contraband goods to the different parts of the North East. Lelen introduced the said driver to the present petitioner of Churachandpur area who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the present case and it was told to him that the vehicle loaded with contraband goods under deep concealment would be handed over him on the morning of 03.02.2025 for departure at Barak valley and accordingly, the same was handed over.

5. Subsequently, the vehicle was apprehended by the DRI Official as aforesaid. The prayer for Zimma of the vehicle was rejected by the learned court below. Hence this revision.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the DRI.

7. Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law in this regard is quite settled and it was held way back by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 283 that there is no reason to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period and the Magistrate should pass an appropriate orders by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle if required at any point of time. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur wherein it was held as follows:-

“6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

From perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the court below has rejected the application of the applicant only on the ground that the vehicle, which was seized by the police, was carrying 146 Kgs. of Ganja. It was more than the commercial quantity and it was kept in a special chamber tactfully prepared in the offending vehicle so as to hide the narcotic substance and that the said vehicle would be required during the course of trial, because if chamber is removed from the vehicle, the material evide