THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.747 of 2025

ORDER :

Challenging the order, dated 21.08.2025 passed in CFR.No.615 of 2025 in Crime No.231 of 2024 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy (for short ‘trial Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Crysta Car bearing No. TG 15 FE 2772, was dismissed.

02. Heard Mr.S.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same is necessary to meet his day-to-day needs. The trial Court observed that Section 52-A of the Act provides that vehicle has to be produced before the concerned authorities i.e., Drug Disposal Committee, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 of NDPS Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam and prayed to allow the revision.

04. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this revision.

05. In Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para Nos.26, 27, 35 to 40 held as under-

26. This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.

35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala2 has released the vehicle.

36. In the present case, this Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has

1 2025 SCC (3) 341

2 (2024) 13 SCC 382: 2022 SCC Online SC 1784

been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of Kerala (cited supra) has held as under (SCC paras

6-9)

“6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section 36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.

7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on