Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
GEORGE KURIAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.)/952/2022
Vehicle - Writ Petition - Article 226, Section 451, NDPS Act Section 20(b)(ii)(A) - The court evaluated the legal framework surrounding the release of a seized vehicle under relevant criminal procedures and penalties established by the NDPS Act, ultimately affirming prior orders while directing further consideration of the petitioner's request.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of a vehicle seized in relation to criminal cases. Earlier orders directed release based on the non-seizure of the vehicle in one case, but a competing claim arose due to its seizure in a separate case under the NDPS Act.
Issues: Whether the vehicle seized in a narcotic offense case could be released despite previously issued orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the vehicle’s confiscation under the NDPS Act precluded its release since the seizure was valid and in compliance with statutory guidelines.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the petitioner’s representation.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayers herein are as under:
a) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner in compliance of Exhibit.P-7 without any further delay.
b) issue direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P-3 application pending before the 2nd respondent in accordance with law within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner being heard.
c) pleased to dispense with filing of English translation of the documents which are in vernacular Malayalam languages.
d) issue any other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also those are prayed during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per order in Crl.M.C.No.2778 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, this Court considered an application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.60 of 2022 of Manimala Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323, 294(b) and 427 of the Indian penal Code. In the said crime, release of the car belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-34-F/5187 was sought for before the trial court and the trial court dismissed the said plea.
4. When this Court considered the dismissal of this petition in Crl.M.C.No.2778 of 2022, as per order dated 22.06.2022, this Court directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the release of the vehicle, after finding that the decision reported in [2019(4) KLT 507] ,Shajahan v. Inspector of Police dealing with contrabands in NDPS cases had no application to the case on hand.
5. It was observed by this Court further that though another Crime No.61 of 2022 also was registered, the vehicle was not seized in the said crime. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was directed to pass an order releasing the vehicle to the petitioner under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure . The copy of the order is produced as Ext.P5. Thereafter, in obedience to Ext.P5 order, the learned Magistrate passed order in CMP No.496 of 2022 dated 15.04.2022 and ordered to release the vehicle on conditions, as per Ext.P6 order. After issuance of Ext.P6 order also, the Station House Officer hesitated to release the vehicle on the assertion that the vehicle also was seized in Crime No.61 of 2022, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985. It is at this juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution never seized the vehicle in Crime No.61 of 2022 and that is the reason why as per Ext.P5 order, this Court ordered to release the vehicle, which led to Ext.P6 order.
7. Repelling this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the vehicle was seized in Crime No.61 of 2022 on 20.01.2022 itself but, the said fact was omitted to be submitted before this Court, while passing Ext.P5 order and he has placed copy of mahazar showing the recovery on
20.01.2022.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure mahazar is not in conformity with Annexure-A1 appended to the notification dated 16.01.2015 issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of India under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the same provides the format of seizure which is Annexure-A1 attached along with the notification.
9. Later, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the seizure recorded in Annexure-A1 format also. Therefore, it is discernible that the vehicle was seized in Crime No.61 of 2022 also on 20.01.2022. It is true that this Court considered
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
