Jharkhand High Court
Daud Alam @ Daud Aalam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 411 of 2022
Daud Alam @ Daud Aalam .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. R.Karan, Advocate
Mr. A. Kr. Verma, Advocate
Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
......
08/ 27.01.2023. The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated
17.06.2021 (arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No.213 of 2018 corresponding
to NDPS Case No.1 of 2020 in Misc. Criminal Case No.342 of 2020) passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, whereby petition for release of
the vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing Registration No.JH01DA 5591 has been
rejected.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the C.O. and S.D.P.O., Balumath,
30 kg of posta powder was seized from this vehicle.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is the owner of the
vehicle, but he is not named in the FIR nor the charge-sheet has been
submitted against him. Therefore, question of appearing him before the court
does not arise. There is nothing on record to suggest that any confiscation
proceeding has been initiated and in any case, the vehicle cannot be
confiscated and only narcotics can be subjected to confiscation under the
provisions of NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel in support of his submission has placed reliance in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2745 of 2002/
2002 Supp. (3) SCR 39 and further upon the judgment passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Rathnamma vs. State
Represented by PSI, Channagiri Police Station in Criminal Petition
No.3571 of 2021.
5. By referring to the judgment, it is submitted that in none of the cases,
the release of the vehicle has been denied because of the reason that narcotics
were seized from those vehicles. In this case, even the narcotic has not been
seized from the vehicle, in question.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer by
submitting that the provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is wide enough
to cover the conveyance which is used in the crime related to NDPS and it
was for this reason the said vehicle has not been released.
7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record. The said vehicle was not used for transportation of any
narcotic substance and no gainful purpose will be served by destruction of the
vehicle and neither owner of the vehicle has been impleaded as an accused or
any charge-sheet has been submitted.
Under the circumstances, in view of the ratio decided in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing Registration
No.JH01DA 5591 Balumath P. S. Case No.213 of 2018 corresponding to
NDPS Case No.1 of 2020 in Misc. Criminal Case No.342 of 2020) is directed
to be released by depositing security bond of Rs.3 Lakh to the satisfaction of
learned court below.
Accordingly, the instant Cr. M. P. is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
