The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) has observed that interim custody of conveyance/vehicle seized under NDPS act can be granted U/S 451 & 457 CrPC. (Rajdhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another)
Facts of the case
The present criminal revision was preferred by the revisionist Rajdhari Yadav against the order passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad in Case arising out of Case registered under Sections 8/20/27A/ 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Lucknow NCB, District Prayagraj whereby the application of the revisionist for release of Truck was rejected.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Truck of the revisionist was being repaired by the mechanic near Naribari Police Chowki. The STF force detained his driver, helper and vehicle from there on 27.05.2021 at about 3:00 PM. Nothing was recovered from the truck of the revisionist. The recovery was made from the Eicher Mini Truck but the police let that vehicle go after getting a huge amount and illegally implicated his truck by taking his truck to Police Station Shankargarh, at a distance of 50 km from the Naribari Police Chowki. From the spot nothing is shown to be recovered from his truck. After planting the alleged ganja the arresting officer badly damaged the mangoes loaded upon his vehicle and looted the cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the driver and challaned the driver and helper in the present case. He is not named in the complaint. He has neither committed any offence nor has any concern with the aforesaid case. He is wrongly and illegally being implicated in the present case on the basis of the fake recovery. The Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him according to the provisions of law. The impugned order is totally against the provisions of law, hence, the revision be allowed and the impugned order rejecting the release application of his vehicle No. GJ 16 AU 9781 be quashed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2018, Dhirendra Singh Thapa Vs. State of U.P. and another and has argued that in that case the Court allowed the revision, impugned order was set aside, and release application was allowed, hence, on the basis of the said judgment the impugned order is prayed to be set aside.
Court's observations and order
The bench observed, "section 52-A of the NDPS Act provides for the seizure and disposal of seized narcotic drug psychotropic substances and conveyances, however, in the instant case, the vehicle had not been confiscated as yet."
The bench at the very outset observed, "The question to be decided in this revision is that in view of the amended provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the notification dated 16.01.2015, whether the learned magistrate/ special court has the authority under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or Drug Disposal Committee is to release the vehicle to consider the application for interim custody of the vehicle/conveyance."
The bench further observed, "A perusal of Section 36- C and 51 of the NDPS Act indicates that the provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not in contradictions with the special Act NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure for interim custody of the vehicle is prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. specifically deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial and the procedure to be followed by the police upon seizure of property. Consequently the judgment Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of the present case and as in the judgment Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another (supra), only the disposal of seized narcotic drug, psychotropic and controlled substances and conveyances were discussed and there was no occasion to consider the matter of release or the interim custody of the vehicle (conveyance)."
The bench allowing the application remarked, "so on the basis of above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) will apply to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act as well. Thus, the Magistrate/ Special Judge, NDPS Act shall have power to consider the application for the interim custody of the conveyance/ vehicle under the provision of Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
The finding of the trial court that the Drug Disposal Committee would dispose of the vehicles seized under NDPS Act is against the mandate of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another (supra).
The revision is hereby allowed. The revisionist is directed to appear before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today to get his application decided on the basis of law discussed above"
Picture Source :
