Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 412
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
FAIZAL U.K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 9850/2023
P.V.ANOOP, K C MOHAMED RASHID, PHIJO PRADEESH, PHILIP ANJU R S, BIJITHA B. BOSE
Courts can grant interim custody of vehicles involved in NDPS Act offenses, emphasizing the rights of registered owners.
Headnote:
Custody - Vehicle Release - NDPS Act - Sections 52A(1), 60(3), 63
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks interim custody of a vehicle seized due to its alleged involvement in transporting contraband. The lower court denied the request, citing provisions of the NDPS Act and unauthorized color change of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's refusal was incorrect as the petitioner holds registered ownership and the color change was not relevant to the interim custody request.
Issues: Whether the vehicle, involved in a narcotics offense, can be released on interim custody to its registered owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to previous rulings that established jurisdiction to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, asserting that ownership rights prevail despite the vehicle's association with a crime.
Final Decision: Interim custody of the vehicle granted to the petitioner upon proper financial assurance.
O R D E R
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) is filed seeking to quash Annexure D order whereby the request of the petitioner to release vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-58-AB-4723 car on interim custody to him was dismissed and further to allow him to have interim custody of the vehicle.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Crime No.877 of 2023 of Iritty Police Station was registered alleging an offence punishable under Section 22 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The accused allegedly had used the said vehicle to transport 0.72 grams of Methamphetamine. The accused was arrested and the contraband as also the vehicle were seized. The petitioner is the owner. He filed C.M.P.No.3455 of
2023 seeking interim custody of the vehicle invoking the provisions of Section 451 of the Code. The court below dismissed the petition for two reasons, namely, the vehicle being the conveyance used for transporting the contraband cannot be released on interim custody in view of the provisions of Section 52A (1) of the NDPS Act and the colour of the vehicle at the time of registration was unauthorisedly changed.
4. The question whether a vehicle involved in an offence under the NDPS Act can be released was considered by this Court inShani v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 88]. After considering the provisions of Sections 52A , 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act and the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court inSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], Union of India v. Mohanlal and another [ (2016) 3 SCC 379 ] and Sainaba v. State of Kerala and another [2022 (7) KHC 273 (SC)] held that the courts have jurisdiction to grant interim custody of a vehicle seized in connection with offences under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the plea for the petitioner to get interim custody is maintainable.
5. The petitioner is not an accused. He is the registered owner of the vehicle. Of course, he has changed the colour of the vehicle. That matter has been taken cognizance of by the Joint Regional Transport Officer and notice was given to the petitioner to remit fees for such colour change. That is a matter within the powers of the Joint RTO concerned. The colour change of the vehicle, which had taken place before the seizure is not a reason to reject the petition.
6. In the circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub Regional Transport Office, Iritty valued the vehicle at Rs.3,00,000/-. The court below is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody on his depositing Rs.3,00,000/-or furnishing bank guarantee for that amount in the court below. It is made clear that the vehicle is released on the condition that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed during the course of investigation or trial, and if it is ordered to be confiscated.
