Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18971
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
SAMEER KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 241 2023
J.R.PREM NAVAZ, SUMEEN S.
A non-accused individual can seek custody of a vehicle seized in a drug-related case, and courts must provide a reasoned basis for denying such custody.
Headnote:
Narcotics - Vehicle Custody - NDPS Act Sections 22, 20, 25, 29, Cr.P.C. Section 451, 457 - Court emphasizes proper reasoning in interim custody orders, allowing applications even when contraband recovery is apparent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with a drug-related crime, despite the petitioner not being accused, as the vehicle was borrowed by another person believed to be trustworthy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous order denying interim custody was improper because it did not adequately consider the petitioner's lack of involvement as an accused and failed to provide a reasoned conclusion.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle and whether the lower court provided a sufficient reasoning to deny the motion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that interim custody applications are maintainable and must be supported by reasoned orders, particularly when the petitioner is not an accused.
Final Decision: The lower court's order was quashed, and the petitioner was allowed to file for interim custody under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The vehicle in question was seized in connection with a drug-related crime, but the petitioner is not an accused in the case. The vehicle was borrowed by a trusted individual who claimed to be taking it on a trip, and the petitioner believed it would not be used for illegal purposes (!) (!) .
-
The initial order denying interim custody of the vehicle was found to be improper because it did not adequately consider the petitioner's lack of involvement as an accused and failed to provide a reasoned conclusion (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that applications for interim custody of vehicles under relevant provisions are maintainable even when contraband recovery is apparent, and that such applications require a reasoned order from the court (!) .
-
The lower court's order was quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to file a petition under the applicable section of the Criminal Procedure Code for interim custody. The court instructed that any such petition should be decided based on a reasoned order, referring to relevant provisions and legal principles (!) .
-
The decision underscores the importance of proper reasoning in interim custody orders, particularly when the petitioner is not an accused and the vehicle's possession is under investigation (!) (!) .
-
The court's final order was to set aside the previous order and allow the petitioner to pursue interim custody through a proper application, which should be decided with detailed reasoning (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023 The petitioner's car bearing registration No. KL-20P-0049 was seized in connection with Crime No.11/2023 registered at the Kazhakuttam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 20(b)(ii)(A), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘the NDPS Act’ for short). The crime is registered on the allegation that, 0.6 grams of MDMA, 20 grams of Ganja and one LSD stamp were recovered from the petitioner’s vehicle. The petitioner is not an accused in the crime.
2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd accused in the crime, a person known to the petitioner, had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of taking his family on a trip to Goa. The petitioner had entrusted the vehicle with the second accused under the bona fide belief that it will not be used for any illegal purpose. Pointing out these aspects and seeking interim custody of his vehicle, the petitioner moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Trivandurm. The prayer for interim custody stands rejected by Ext.P2 order, based on the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the contraband were recovered from the utility box of the vehicle and the investigation is at its infancy. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.
3. This Court in Shanil and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. /b>.
( 2023/KER/9753 ) has held that Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and Ors. [ 2019 (5) KHC 401 ) stands impliedly reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC (SC)). It is also held that applications seeking interim custody under Section 457 Cr.P.C. are maintainable, even if the inventory of the vehicle is prepared, certified and forwarded to the Drug Disposal Committee. As such, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have passed a reasoned order, rather than reproducing the submission of the Public Prosecutor. The fact that the petitioner is not an accused is also not seen considered.
In the result, Ext.P2 order is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to file a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. If such petition is filed, the court below shall pass a reasoned order thereon, referring to the relevant provisions and precedents.
Ordered accordingly.
