HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
NEETHU MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ULIKKAL POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP(Crl.)/768/2022
Narcotics - Vehicle Release - NDPS Act - Sections related to Precursor Control and Seizure Procedures - The court mandated the review and consideration of the petitioner's application for vehicle release, highlighting the need for compliance with statutory provisions for custody and release under the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a vehicle owner, sought the release of her car taken by police due to its use in a narcotic offense involving her brothers and MDMA possession. She claimed her application for release was ignored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's grievance warranted a directive for the second respondent to consider her application promptly, as she had complied with prior legal procedures.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of her vehicle despite its involvement in a narcotic-related case and the subsequent failure of the authorities to act on her application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of a timely review of the application for vehicle release, reinforcing the principles under the NDPS Act regarding the handling of seized property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed; the second respondent was directed to consider the application for the vehicle's release within ten days.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022 This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to release petitioner's vehicle ALTO Car bearing No.KL-59-X-7765 which was taken in to custody in Crime No.81 of 2022 of Ulikkal Police Station, on such terms and conditions this Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P5 application submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
(iii) An order allowing the petitioner to file the Writ Petition (Civil) with vernacular document and granting time to file English translation of the same as and when it becomes necessary;
(iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is the owner of an ALTO Car bearing No.KL-59-X-7765 and a teacher by profession working in Sal Sabeel Public School, Sreekandapuram, Kannur. The Car belonging to the petitioner referred to above was borrowed by her brothers on 03.02.2022 for taking one among them to the hospital. Petitioner handed over the key of the vehicle to her brothers since the request appeared to her is for a genuine purpose. Later it was transpired to her that the car was taken into custody by the 1st respondent, since brothers of the petitioner alongwith one person called Mr.Abhijit, were found in possession of 260 mg of MDMA, which is a prohibited substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). Crime No.81/2022 was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was laid by the 1st respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. The vehicle was alleged as in the custody of the 1st respondent. True copies of the FIR and Seizure Mahazar in Crime No.81/2022 of Ulikkal Police Station, the statement given by the petitioner in Crime No.81/2022 of Ulikkal Police Station, the communication issued by the Godown Officer, NDPS Godown, Kozhikode dated 23.03.2021 are produced alongwith the petition on hand respectively as Exts.P1 to P4.
3. Since the petitioner has already made an application before the 2nd respondent on 06.08.2022 seeking for a consideration of her prayer to release the vehicle in her interim custody, true copy of which is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P5 and the contention raised being that it was not acted upon till date, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed on consideration of Ext.P5 by the 2nd respondent.
Writ Petition (Crl.) stands allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in it within a period of ten days from this day.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.