Orissa High Court
Primeover Mobility vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party(S) on 16 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 170 of 2025
Primeover Mobility .... Petitioner(s)
Technologies
Mr. Manoranjan Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S.J.Mohanty, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.01.2025
01. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024,
whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore has rejected the application
of the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the
vehicle namely, Maruti Breeza bearing Registration No.KA-
03AG-9614 in interim zima.
2. The application of the petitioner under Section 457
Cr.P.C. for releasing of the vehicle namely, Maruti Breeza bearing
Registration No.KA-03AG-9614, which was allegedly employed
for the commission of offences U/Ss NDPS act, has been turned
down. The court below has given the following reasoning while
rejecting the application:
" .....that means only the Investigating Agency or the
IO of the case can file application for release of the
seized conveyances. On further perusal of all those
decisions of the Hon'ble Court it is seen that, no where
the Hon'ble court has mentioned that this court has
power to deal with the applications to release the
seized vehicles under NDPS Act as per the provisions
of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to deal with the release of the present
vehicle seized under NDPS Act under the provision of
Section 457 Cr.P.C. Moreover, had it been an
application/petition U/s. 52-A of the NDPS Act this
Court is also unable to release the alleged vehicle as
per the instruction issued under Para-5 and 6 of the
CRLREV No.404 of 2020, No.185 of 2021 and No.177
of 2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa as this
application/petition has not been made either by the
Investigating Agency or by the Prosecuting Agency.
More particularly the SOP/guidelines issued in the
division Bench judgment in State of Orissa Vrs.
Registrar General, Orissa High Court vide Para No.25
have been vividly interpreted and discussed by the
Hon'ble Justice S. Pujari wherein he has given the
finding that proceeding must been initiated through the
Investigating Agency/Prosecution as the right to make
application by the petitioner does not anymore survives
since the same is subject to pre-trial disposal as per
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. But in this case the
owner/petitioner has filed this application/petition
through his counsel. Therefore, giving utmost regard to
the decisions of the Hon'ble Court I am not inclined to
allow the petition. Hence, this petition is rejected."
3. The sole ground of rejection of the application is that
since the application was not initiated/moved by the prosecution or
investigating agency, the same cannot find favour from the court.
The trial court has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed
in CRLREV No. 404 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 32580 of 2021
while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Padhy, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this Court dated 04.02.2023 passed in
CRLREV No. 32 of 2020 in the case of Nakka Sankar Rao v.
State of Odisha which held as under:-
"6. Accordingly, giving liberty to the
Prosecution/Investigating Agency to seek disposal of
the conveyance in question under Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act before the Magistrate concerned and in that
event, the Magistrate concerned shall deal with the
same in accordance with law, more particularly in the
light of the directions given in the abovementioned
Division Bench judgment of this Court, this CRLREV
stands disposed of.
7. However, so far as seizure of other articles, if any,
is concerned, the petitioner is also at liberty to
approach the Court where the case is pending for
release of the same and in that event, the same shall be
decided on its own merit, within a period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
notwithstanding the earlier rejection by the Court
concerned."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the
case of Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam in Criminal Appeal
No.87 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.13370 of 2024) has also authoritatively held that the NDPS
Act does not create a Bar for interim release of the vehicle under
Section 451 or 457 of Cr.P.C seized in a case of NDPS offence.
This Court also in an order dated 16.02.2024 passed in CRLMC
No. 1463 of 2023 in the case of Rajesh Adakatia v. State of
Odisha has expressed the similar view.
6. Perusal of the aforementioned judgments would make it
clear that NDPS Act provides for disposal of the conveyance
allegedly employed in the commission of crime. However, there is
no statutory bar in releasing of the vehicle on Zimanama with any
condition that may be deemed fit and proper to be imposed by the
Court. Therefore, the court below has not appropriately applied the
ratio of the judgments to the present case and rejected the
application.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated
26.11.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jeypore is set aside.
The petitioner is allowed to move an application in that regard
afresh for interim release of the vehicle. If such application is
moved, the same shall be considered by the court below on the
basis of the judgments of this Court as referred to above as well as
the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard.
8. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 17-Jan-2025 14:46:00
