The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (PRASHANT DWIVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

3

03-03-2021 Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri S.M. Guru, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Ramji Pandey, PL for the respondent-State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The applicant has filed the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Rewa (MP), in MJCR No.480/2020, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for handing over the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-17-MT-6144 on supardginama has been rejected.

The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-17-MT-6144 that was seized in connection with Crime No.265/2020 registered at Police Station-University, District Rewa in respect of offence punishable under Section 8, 21, 22 of the NDPS Act & 5/13 of M.P. Durgs Control Act. As per corresponding version, applicant was carrying 10 bottle of Onrex Cough Syrup of 100 ML containing codeine from the possession of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered owner by the aforesaid vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. It is further submitted that the said vehicle which is now kept in the police station, be released on supurdginama otherwise due to its non-use, the same would useless after sometime. There is no need to keep the said vehicle in custody. He further submitted that learned Special Judge committed mistake in rejecting the prayer of the applicant and not giving the said vehicle in custody.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant's vehicle was found to be involved in a serious crime registered under NDPS Act and if the vehicle in question is handed over, the same would be used for commission of another offence. Accused/applicant is not entitled to get vehicle on Supurdginama. Learned counsel for the State also submits that aforesaid vehicle cannot be given on supurdginama under Section 52(A) (ii) of NDPS Act, in view of the principle laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and others, Criminal Appeal No.652/2012 and Section 52(A) (ii) of NDPS Act Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question may be handed over to the applicant on supurdginama as applicant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time. No purpose would be served to keep the vehicle in question parked in the police station wherein it would run that risk of deterioration on account of weather and other facts. There is no provision in the NDPS Act to restrict the power of the trial Court to release the vehicle in interim custody. It has been held by this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam Vs. State of M.P. 2005(2) ANJ MP 351, that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it may be released in interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be denied to the owner of the vehicle, simply because it is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Tripura, Agartala in the case of Sri Sankar Das Vs. State of Tripura (Cri. Petition No.9 of 2018, decided on 16.3.2018) has held in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 as under :-

"[9] Substantively, directions in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) are concerned with the storage and disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, in Para- 31.2 of the said decision in respect of storage, the reference has been made to conveyance as well. Similarly, in the notification dated 16.01.2015 the provision has been made fo