The court ruled that a seized vehicle must be promptly released to the owner following an acquittal in narcotics cases, ensuring adherence to procedural requirements.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed in connection with a petition dated 14.07.2008 pending before the Learned Additional District Judge-I, Krishnanagar, Nadia for release of vehicle in connection with Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 56 of 2008 and N.D.P.S. Case No. 63 of 2008. 2. The appellant on 13.08.2008 purchased a vehicle from Tapas Mondal. Pursuant to the purchase of the vehicle being WMC-258, the police authority seized the same on 16.03.2008 and Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 56 of 2008 was registered read with N.D.P.S. Case No. 63 of 2008. Pursuant to the service of the vehicle as mentioned above the petitioner made an application for release of the same.

3. The appellant stated that on 28.08.2009 the Learned Judge, Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act), Nadia passed a judgment acquitting all the accused persons in the said case.

4. The appellant sated that although judgment acquitting all accused persons in N.D.P.S. Case No. 63 of 2008 had been delivered yet the application of the appellant for release of the vehicle had not been disposed.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that:-

i. The pendency of the application before the Learned Court below has caused hardship to the appellant.

ii. The Learned Judge erred in not disposing the application of the appellant expeditiously.

iii. The Learned Judge ought to have disposed the application of the appellant expeditiously.

iv. The appellant is unable to earn his livelihood due to non-release of his vehicle.

v. Unless an order is passed in terms prayed for the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

6. Heard the submission of the Learned Advocate for the State. 7. The appellant had filed a petition dated 14.7.2008 pending before the Learned Additional District Judge-I Krishnanagar, Nadia for the release of vehicle associated with Kaliganj P.S. Case No. 56/08 and N.D.P.S. case no. 63/08.

8. The Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that on 28.8.2009, the Learned Judge, Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act) as aforesaid had acquitted all the accused persons. The present petitioner had been a registered owner of a truck. The said truck was seized by the police in connection with the case as aforesaid relating to the offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act. However, the said vehicle was not released in favour of the petitioner.

9. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states as follows:- “Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.---For the purposes of this section, "property" includes--

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.”

10. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states as follows:- “Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial -

(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before