The court established that seized vehicles under the Narcotic Drugs Act cannot be granted interim custody; they must be disposed of according to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

A lorry, worth lakhs of rupees, which is owned by the petitioner firm by name M/s.Smart Logistics, is under the threat of disposal by the State under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The reason is that the driver of the lorry had kept 120 grams of ganja in the cabin of the lorry.

2. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm conducting transport and parcel services. The petitioner firm is the owner of the lorry bearing the registration number KL-11/BL-6372. This vehicle was intercepted and searched by the police. It was then found that the driver had kept 120 grams of ganja in the cabin of the lorry. The police seized the ganja and the lorry and registered a case against the driver under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. The vehicle was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Vatakara. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for granting interim custody of the vehicle to it. The application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as per Ext.P2 order. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The reliefs sought in the writ petition, after its amendment, are the following:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to release the vehicle bearing No.KL 11 BL 6372 forthwith to the petitioner, as an interim custody, upon conditions if any, and report the matter to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vatakara.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus order or direction directing the additional respondents 3 and 4 to release the ASHOK LAYLAND ECOMET LORRY bearing registration No.KL 11 BL-6372 to the petitioner upon conditions if any, forthwith, after intimating the release to the concerned Magistrate, pending disposal of the case.

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The second respondent in the writ petition is the Sub Inspector of Vatakara police station. The third respondent is the Drug Disposal Committee of Kozhikode District which is constituted under Section 52A of the Act. The fourth respondent is the Excise Commissioner and it appears that he is an unnecessary party to the writ petition.

5. The aforesaid reliefs are claimed in the writ petition on the following grounds: The petitioner firm or its Managing Partner is not in any manner connected with the offence alleged against the driver of the vehicle and that they had no knowledge about the carrying of any contraband substance in the lorry. The vehicle is proposed to be disposed of by the third respondent. Since the vehicle is not involved in the commission of the offence alleged against the driver, it is liable to be released to the petitioner. 6. The District Police Chief, Kozhikode, who is the Chairman of the third respondent Drug Disposal Committee, has filed counter affidavit in the writ petition. The crux of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent can be stated as follows. The lorry KL-11/BL-6372 owned by the petitioner firm is involved in the case registered as Crime No.12/2020 of Vatakara Police Station under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. The vehicle was seized by the Vatakara police while conducting patrol duty when it was found that 120 grams of ganja was kept in the cabin of the lorry. The vehicle and the contraband substance were produced before the learned Magistrate as per Section 52A of the Act and an inventory was prepared and the learned Magistrate has duly certified the inventory. The second respondent has made a requisition to the Drug Disposal Committee to proceed further in terms of of the Act for disposal of the contraband as well as the vehicle. The prosecution case is that the accused was transporting the ganja for the purpose of sale. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle is not invol