Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
HARI VELLOOR VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6662 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.V.ANOOP, SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP, SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID, SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C. ASHI
The jurisdictional Magistrate retains the power to grant interim custody of seized vehicles, irrespective of procedures under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22(a) and Section 52A - Seizure of vehicle in connection with alleged drug offence - Petitioner seeks interim custody of vehicle - Magistrate's order dismissing petition on grounds of disposal procedure under Section 52A quashed - Jurisdictional Magistrate retains power to grant interim custody despite disposal procedures. (Paras 1, 2, 5)
(B) Interim Custody - Procedure and Powers - Court clarifies the authority of jurisdictional Magistrate to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle, reinforcing legal precedents. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
The seizure of a vehicle occurred during a police operation wherein a small quantity of MDMA was reportedly found in the driver's possession. The petitioner, claiming no involvement in the crime, sought interim release of the vehicle, which the Magistrate initially denied based on the vehicle's transfer to a Drug Disposal Committee.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the Magistrate's non-consideration of the authority to grant interim custody under the NDPS Act was erroneous and mandated a fresh reasoned decision.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the legal framework for disposal under Section 52A limits the jurisdictional court's power to award interim custody of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdictional Magistrate's authority to grant interim custody is preserved despite the vehicle being processed under Section 52A, as supported by existing legal precedents.
Result: Crl.MC allowed and earlier order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vehicle's seizure related to drug laws. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
The petitioner's Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KL 46 U 5071 was seized in connection with Crime No. 251/2025 registered at the Kunnamkulam Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 22 (a) of the NDPS Act. The crime was registered on the allegation that, 0.35 grams of MDMA was recovered from the pocket of the driver of the car. The petitioner not being an accused, moved an application seeking interim custody of the car.
2. By the impugned Annexure C order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the vehicle was made over to the Drug Disposal Committee as provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions of this Court inShanil vs. State of Kerala ( 2023 (2) KHC 88 ) andFaizal U.K. vs. State of Kerala ( 2023 KHC OnLine 9424 ) to contend that the procedure for disposal under of the NDPS Act does not deprive the jurisdictional courts of its power to grant interim custody of the vehicle under Section 497 of the BNSS.
4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. There is substantial merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The legal position that the jurisdictional Magistrate is not denuded of the power to order interim custody, even if the procedure for disposal under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is resorted to is by now well settled. Therefore, rejection of the application on that solitary ground cannot be sustained.
