Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PRINCE K.V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7803 2023
Quash - Criminal Procedure - Cr.P.C. Section 451; NDPS Act Section 22(b) - The court quashed the dismissal of an application for the release of property not connected to the crime, emphasizing urgent release of seized articles and reliance on Supreme Court precedent for conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the dismissal of an application to release his mobile phone and driving license, which were seized during the investigation of a drug-related offense under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seized items were not connected to the crime and directed their release, citing the Supreme Court's precedent for such cases and the need for expediency in releasing articles not linked to the offense.
Issues: Whether the items seized, which are not connected to the alleged crime, should be released to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that articles seized during investigations must be released expeditiously if not connected to the charge, in line with established Supreme Court principles.
Final Decision: The application to quash the order was allowed, and the original documents were directed to be released with conditions.
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash Annexure-2 order by which an application under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 583/2022 of Karuvarakkund Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sec. 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.11.2022 at 12.45 am, the 1st and 2nd accused were found in possession of 4.5 gms of MDMA. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the time of search, his mobile phone and original driving licence was seized by the police. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. to release the mobile phone and driving licence. The same is dismissed as per Annexure-2 order.
Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C. is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution against the petitioner is for the offence under Sec. 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The original driving licence and the mobile phone is seized by the police. That is not connected to the crime. In such circumstances, there can be a direction to release the same with a condition that the same will be produced as and when required. InSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [ 2003 (2) KLT 1089 ], the Apex Court observed that the articles seized should be released expeditiously.
5. In the light of the same, there can be a direction to release the passport and the driving licence after imposing necessary conditions mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed with the following directions :
1) Annexure-2 order is set aside.
2) Crl.M.P. No. 399/2023 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST(POA) Act and NDPS Act, Manjeri is allowed and the learned trial Judge is directed to release the original driving licence and the mobile phone, after imposing the condition mentioned in Sunderbhai Ambalal's case (supra).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
