IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2400 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

PRADEEP KUMAR JAISWAL S/O RAMLAL JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O VILLAGE- GOWHARI, P.S.- RAMPUR BAGHELAN DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI B. S. KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION GARH DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI SATYAPAL CHADHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Reserved on : 03.07.2023 Pronounced on : 10.07.2023 .................................................................................................................

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

I n this revision case, the applicant has challenged the order dated

03.05.2023 passed by Additional Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rewa in MJCR No.746/2023. By this order, the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application seeking interim custody of vehicle seized in crime No.529/2022 of Police Station Garh, District Rewa.

2 . According to prosecution case, in crime no.529/2022 one Hero Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM Xtreme motor-cycle with given chassis number was seized by police station Garh, District Rewa, in relation to offences under Sections 8, 21 and 22 NDPS Act for having been used in transporting 75 bottles of intoxicating cough syrup. Applicant prayed for interim custody of that vehicle claiming that he was the registered owner of vehicle. His application was rejected by the impugned order.

3. The impugned order has been challenged in this revision on the ground that learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the fact that applicant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and was falsely implicated in the matter. He did not commit any offence and until the confiscation proceedings, he was entitled to have the interim custody of vehicle. It was further contended that the seized vehicle may get damaged on account of long custody in the police station and refusing its interim custody to the applicant would result injustice to him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and interim custody of the seized vehicle be allowed to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and examined the record.

6. In the light of grounds raised in this revision petition, the impugned order is examined carefully. It is mentioned therein that despite being the registered owner of seized vehicle, the applicant took no pains to get the number plate screwed on that vehicle and that he was using it for long period of nine months without any number plate. Further, it was observed that the role of applicant in the commission of crime could not have been investigated. The interim custody of vehicle was therefore refused. It may be observed here that driving a vehicle without a number plate is an altogether different crime and for Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM this reason alone, the interim custody of vehicle could not have been refused. Further, no liability can be fastened upon applicant for non-investigation of his role in the commission of crime. Thus, both the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge for refusing the interim custody do not appeal to logic.

7. The decision given in case of Kapil Jha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.4636/2022 by Gwalior Bench of this Court has been heavily relied upon by the applicant, in which various provisions of NDPS Act including Sections 51, 60, 63, 36-C have been discussed and it has been held that interim custody of vehicle under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. cannot be refused merely on the ground that vehicle is liable to be confiscated under the provisions of NDPS Act.

8. On the principles of law as laid down in the case of Kapil Jha (supra), there is no legal justification to refuse interim custody; therefore,