Advocates:
['JATA SHANKAR PANDEY', 'G A', '', 'ASHISH PANDEY']

A.F.R.

Court No. - 86

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19621 of 2021

Applicant :- Shivam Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Jata Shankar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey appearing for NCB as well as Sri

Rajeshwar Singh, Rakesh Chand Srivastava, Sri Amit Sinha,

learned A.G.A. assisted by Rajnish Pandey and Sri Madnesh

Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and

perused the record.

The present application has been filed for quashing the order

dated 4.9.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.

10, Allahabad in N.C.R. No. UPAD-01007233/2021

(State/NCB Vs. Vinod Yadav), under sections 8/20 N.D.P.S.

Act, arsing out of Case Crime no. 188 of 2021, Police Station

Shankargarh, District Prayagraj.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the vehicle

bearing registration No. UP62 AT8908 belongs to the applicant

and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle at

police station which would result in the vehicle becoming junk.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal

Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 wherein it

been held:-

"that any vehicle can not be permitted to be kept for a long time

in the premise of police station and allowed to be destroyed.

The fact and circumstance of this case is different from the fact

and circumstance of SunderBhai Ambalal Desi's case (Supra),

hence the impugned order passed by learned Judge can not be

said illegal or improper. However, it is made clear that if the

application for confiscation has not been filed or is not pending

or the vehicle has still not been confiscated the revisionist may

file fresh application for release of his vehicle in order to avoid

the damage before he court below and the learned Judge may

consider the application according to provision of law".

In support of his contention, learned counsel for N.C.B. as well

as learned A.G.A. for the State has also placed the reliance of

Revision Vs. Shajahan decided on 28.10.2019 in Crl. Rev.

Pet No. 1449 of 2018 decided by the Kerala High Court,

whereof the paragraph No. 4 and 5 of the judgement is quoted

below:

4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioners is that

the conveyances involved in transportation of narcotic drugs or

psychotropic substances may not belong to the actual transporter, in

which event, confiscation and destruction by the competent officer without

any enquiry in that regard may affect the rights of the owner of such

vehicle. In fact, S.63 of the Act had provided for a procedure in making

confiscations. S.63 gives the power to the Court to decide whether any

article or thing seized under the Act is liable to be confiscated in terms of

Sections 60, 61 or 62 of the Act. Before the amendment to Section 52A,

conveyance was not included as an item which should be seized and

disposed. The very fact that conveyance had been incorporated in the

amendment itself indicates that the Government intended to provide a

special procedure to deal with such conveyance, while taking into account

the fact that most of the transportation are done in conveyances which

itself is defined Crl.R.P.No.1440/2018 & conn.cases u/s 2(viii) as meaning

"a conveyance of any description whatsoever including any aircraft,

vehicle or vessel." Therefore, if any vehicle is involved in transportation of

narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance, such

vehicles also could be seized and disposed of in terms of S.52A(1) of the

Act. S.63 was a special procedure available at the inception of the Act and

when the statute had been amended giving the power of disposal of

narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or

conveyances to a special officer,