ORDER

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2]

This revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Case No. SCNDPS No.02/2023, by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Garoth District Mandsaur whereby, the petitioner’s application for interim custody of vehicle bearing registration No.MP-43-CA-4168, an i10 car has been rejected on the ground that it was found to be involved in transportation of narcotic drug.

3]

In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police of 10.09.2022, being driven by accused Sonu @ Irfan along with the contraband, 100 grams of MDMA and 100 grams of opium. Subsequently, it was found that the said vehicle was registered in the name of the present petitioner, and during the investigation it was found that the petitioner has given the present vehicle on rent to the main accused and admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the aforesaid case.

4]

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for supurdagi of the aforesaid vehicle has been rejected by the learned Judge of the Trial Court holding that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’) and has also relied upon Section 60(3) of the Act of 1985. Counsel has submitted that even though the vehicle is liable to confiscation, however, its interim custody ought not to have been refused especially when the petitioner herself is not an accused in the case and so far as the confiscation proceedings are concerned, the same shall be contested by the petitioner as and when she would receive notice for the same.

It is submitted that if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police custody, due to its disuse and lapse of time, it would not be usable anymore and thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. be allowed and the vehicle be given on supurdagi to the petitioner.

5]

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

6]

Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record including the impugned order, it is found that it is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and admittedly, she is not an accused in the aforesaid case lodged at Crime No.377/2022 at Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur and she has still not been given any notice for confiscation by the authorities whereas, the vehicle has been seized on 10.09.2022. Thus, it has already been more than 1 year and 4 months.

7]

In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present revision and is of the considered opinion that if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the police custody, due to harsh weather it would certainly suffer wear and tear on account of its disuse, the petitioner would not be able to ply the same for want of proper maintenance and in such circumstances, no purpose would be served to keep the vehicle in the police station when the petitioner herself is not an accused in the matter.

8]

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the vehicle in question i.e. i10 car bearing registration No.MP-43-CA-4168 is directed to be released to the petitioner on supurdagi subject to his/her furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with an undertaking that till the final disposal of the criminal case, he/she shall not alienate, transfer or modify the aforesaid vehicle in any manner, except with the written permission of the Trial Court.

9]

With the aforesaid, the revision stands allowed and disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar