The court clarified that the jurisdictional court has the authority to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, overriding the Drug Disposal Committee's decision.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 05th day of April, 2023 The petitioner is the owner of a Toyota Innova car bearing Registration No.KL-44-A-1771, seized in connection with Crime No.582 of 2021 of Perumbavoor police station. The crime is registered alleging commission of the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii) A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘the NDPS Act’ for short). The petitioner is not an accused in the crime.

2. The vehicle was seized while it was being driven by the accused, who had borrowed the vehicle from the petitioner for personal purposes. Petitioner had approached the Drug Disposal Committee, seeking release of the vehicle. That petition having been rejected, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(Crl).No.466 of 2021. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7, finding merit in the petitioner’s contention that the vehicle cannot be termed as ‘conveyance’, since the contraband was recovered from the lodge room where the accused was staying. The Drug Disposal Committee was hence directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application, with specific reference to the decisions inSmart Logistics v. State of Kerala [ 2020(5) KLT 298 ] and Sainaba v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 273 (SC)), as also Sections 52A and 60 of the NDPS Act. In purported compliance of the direction, the Drug Disposal Committee reconsidered petitioner’s application and once again rejected the same. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the specific direction issued by this Court. In this regard, attention is drawn to the observation in Ext.P7 judgment that the vehicle cannot be termed as ‘conveyance’.

4. The legal position laid down by the Division Bench inShajahan v. Inspector of Excise and Ors. [ 2019 (5) KHC 401 ), that vehicles seized in connection with NDPS crimes cannot be released by the jurisdictional court in view of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which require preparation of an inventory in certification by the concerned court and forwarding of the inventory to the Drug Disposal Committee, has been reversed by the Apex Court decision inSainaba (supra). Later, inShanil and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2023 SCC Online Ker 1023), this Court held that does not take away the power of the competent court to release the vehicle on interim custody. That being the legal position as on date, the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional court with a petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., rather than running after the Drug Disposal Committee, which only has the power to confiscate and dispose the vehicles.

5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s court. If such petition is filed, the same shall be decided on merits, de hors the rejection of petitioner’s application by the Drug Disposal Committee.

The petitioner’s vehicle shall not be sold by the

2nd respondent, till a decision is taken on the petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., provided, the petitioner’s vehicle has not been sold till date.