The court upheld the interim custody of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case, emphasizing the need for the vehicle's availability for trial while ensuring conditions for its return.

ORAL ORDER

The order passed by the learned Special Judge granting interim custody of the vehicle/Maruthi Swift car bearing registration No.AP 37 DS 2191 to the respondent is challenged in this petition by the petitioner/complainant namely Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge except stating that the Special Court is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for the interim custody of conveyance/vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. in cases arising out of provisions of NDPS Act, has not considered the case on merits. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to take into consideration that a vehicle seized in case of this nature is required for identification and if the vehicle is released, there is likelihood of the vehicle being not produced before the Court at the relevant time.

3. Learned counsel Ms.Maheshwari D.M., appearing for the petitioner has contended that in the vehicle in question, the accused were carrying contraband i.e., 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40 gms and methaqualone weighing 3 grams. She contended that the accused have used the vehicle to carry obnoxious drug and the MDMA which was seized in this case is commercial quantity. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Union of India Through C.R.P.F. 61 B.N. v. Union of India Through Central Excise Department (2008 SCC online Pat 392), she contended that Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of seized materials including Narcotic Drugs Substance, apparatus, utensils etc., used in commission of offence. Section 63 lays down procedure for confiscation of seized material and therefore, in the present case the vehicle in question in which the accused was carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs is liable to be confiscated. She contended that the allegations are serious in nature and therefore, the Special Judge was not justified in releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. She has relied on para-9 of the above referred judgment, which reads as under:

“9. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the opposite party reported in 2005 SCC does not lay down any law. However, it goes to show that in cases under N.D.P.S. Act release of vehicle is not a matter of routine. The Apex Court in above decision has set aside the order of High Court regarding release of vehicle and directed the respondent to surrender the vehicle. In short order, the Apex Court in paragraph-3 has observed as follows:-

“3. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed for release of the vehicle during trial of the accused for violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act). In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle."

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has contended that the applicant/respondent was not arraigned as an accused in this case. Admittedly, he is the registered owner of the vehicle and as per prosecution material, it was accused No.1 who borrowed the said vehicle and therefore, he was totally unaware of the fact that the said vehicle was being used to carry any drug much less the narcotic drugs as alleged. She contended that the Special Court has the power to release the vehicle and after considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned Special Judge was pleased to pass the order releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of respondent. She submitted that the respondent will strictly abide the conditions imposed and now, in view of the stay order granted by this Court, the vehicle is exposed to sunlight and rain since 22.10.2021 and if the vehicle is not released pending disposal of trial,