Confiscation of a vehicle under the NDPS Act requires evidence of its involvement in drug trafficking activities.

ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of October, 2021 This petition is filed challenging an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally in CMP No.1098/2021 in Crime No.761/2021. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.761/2021 of Karungappally Police Station pending on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally (for short ‘the court below’). The said crime was registered for an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and another person were found using Ganja at the house of the 1st accused. The Investigating Agency has recovered 51.180 gm of Ganja from that house. Mobile Phones and Motor Bikes belong to the accused were taken into custody and therefore an application was filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner before the court below seeking for release of those. The Magistrate allowed the petition in part and ordered for the release of the mobile phone alone. The prayer for the release of the motorbike in interim custody of the petitioner was declined and the copy of that order is available with the petition on hand as Annexure-A3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that in a context where there is no material to indicate involvement of the vehicle in the crime, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act. According to the learned counsel, that conveyance is liable for confiscation only when it’s use for carrying Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance is prima facie established. In the case on hand, involvement of the vehicle is not brought out from any of the materials produced by the Investigating Agency and therefore the same is not liable for confiscation. Accordingly the release of the vehicle in the custody of the petitioner was sought.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to file a statement regarding the allegations contained in the Criminal M.C. She obtained a statement from the Station House Officer, Karunagappally Police Station and placed for perusal. It has been stated in the report that the motorcycle seized had no connection with the case. The learned Public Prosecutor has also reiterated during the course of argument that the release of the vehicle is not objected to by the Investigating Officer.

In the above circumstances, the Crl.M.C. stands allowed.

Order passed on 25.06.2021 in CMP No.1098/2021 in Crime No.761/2021 to the extent it declined the release of the motorcycle is set aside. The motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-22-L-4709 shall be released to the petitioner on making the certificate of registration and other vehicular records, available to the court below.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

MJL

APPENDIX PETITIONER ’ S ANNEXUR E S:

ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT & FIR IN CRIME NO.761/2021 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNGAPPALLY.

ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, CMP NO.1098/2021 FILED UNDER S. 451 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2021 IN CMP NO.1098/2021 IN CRIME NO.761/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNGAPPALLY.

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES:NIL TRUE COPY P A TO JUDGE