Ganesh Ankush Mane vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1547 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4156 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the order dated 01.04.2020 in

Crl.M.P. No.343 of 2020 in Cr.No.71 of 2020 passed by the learned

Special Sessions Judge for the trial of Cases under NARCOTIC Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act - cum - I Additional Sessions Judge,

Khammam, and for consequential direction to release the crime

vehicle bearing registration No.MH 12PH 8596 as an interim custody.

2. Heard Mr. J.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent - State. Perused the entire material on record.

3. The crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Dzire Car bearing

registration No. MH 12PH 8596 was seized in Crime No.71 of 2020

by the Police of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station. The offence

alleged against the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1 and other

accused is under Section - 8 (c) read with 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act').

4. The petitioner herein, who is accused No.1 in the above

crime, claiming to be the owner of the said crime vehicle, filed an

application under Section - 457 (1) of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.343 of

2020 in Crime No.71 of 2020 seeking for release of the said crime KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

vehicle as an interim custody. But, the same was dismissed by the

learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, vide order dated 01-

04-2020 on the ground that necessary procedure prescribed in Section

52-A of the Act to be followed and it has no jurisdiction to release the

crime vehicle as an interim custody as per the principle laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal1.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

Circular No.13/SO/2019, dated 15.07.2019 issued by this Court. He

has also placed reliance on the judgments in Sunderbhai Ambalal

Desai v. State of Gujarat2, Mohanlal1, Jagtar Sing v. State of

Rajasthan3, Sankar Das v. State of Tripura4, Waish Ahmed v. The

State of West Bengal5, Abhijeet Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand6,

Manoj Kumar Pandy v. State of M.P.7, Shajahan v. Inspector of

Excise8 and Ram Salone Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh9.

6. In Mohanlal1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain

guidelines in paragraph No.20, which are as follows:

"20. To sum up we direct as under:

(1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-

. (2016) 3 SCC 379

. (2002) 10 SCC 283

. S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.3542/2017, dated 09.11.2017

. Crl.Petn.No.9 of 2018, dated 16.03.2018

. C.R.R. No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019

. Crl.Misc.Application No.368 of 2019, dated 10.04.2019

. CRR No.2971 of 2019, dated 27.08.2019

. Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1440 of 2018, dated 28.10.2019

. CRR No.1215 of 2020, dated 04.09.2020.

KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered Under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application Under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required Under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'seizure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.

(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.

(3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

required, one storage facility for more than one districts.

(4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'disposal of drugs'."

7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized

vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the

Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking

appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the

said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done

pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. Various

High Courts in the judgments stated above, after referring to various

provisions of the Act, including Sections - 52-A, 60 and 63 and

various provisions of Cr.P.C., and also the principle laid down in

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2 and Mohanlal1, ordered to be released

the vehicles seized in the crimes for the offences under the Act.

8. In the other judgments mentioned above, relying upon the

principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal1, the

respective High Courts have held that the Magistrates/Designated

Courts under the Act have to release crime vehicles seized in KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

connection with crimes for the offences under the Act on verification

of ownership documents and on imposition of certain conditions.

9. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 in Crl.P. No.2662 of

2020, relying upon the decisions in Jagtar Sing3 and Waish Ahmed5

of different High Courts and also in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2

granted the relief of interim custody to the owner of the vehicle on

certain conditions. This Court has issued the Circular

No.13/SO/2019, dated 15.07.2019 by referring to the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohanlal1. Section 52-A of the

Act was also referred therein.

10. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court and the respective High Courts in the judgments referred to

above, coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner is owner of the above crime vehicle and the same was

seized in the above crime. He has also filed copy of Certificate of

Registration wherein the name of the owner of the vehicle and

registration number are specifically mentioned. The owner of the said

vehicle is accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. The offence alleged

against the petitioner and other accused is under Section - 8 (c) read

with 20 (b) of the Act. The designated Court i.e., I Additional

Sessions Judge, Khammam, in the impugned order, has specifically

mentioned that the crime vehicle was kept in the police station. The

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would confirm

the said fact.

KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

11. As discussed supra, the Bhadrachalm Town Police Station

has not produced the crime vehicle with the designated Court so far.

Admittedly, the crime vehicle was seized by the police and kept it

with them.

12. As discussed supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically

held that it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police

stations for a long period. In view of the above said legal position and

also the fact that the Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town

Police Station, Khammam District, is directed to produce the crime

vehicle (i.e., Maruti Dzire Car bearing registration No.MH 12PH 8596

before the designated Court (I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam)

within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On such deposit, the designated Court shall return the

crime vehicle to the petitioner/owner of the vehicle, on proper

verification of ownership with original certificate of registration as an

interim custody on the following conditions.

i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two

lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the designated Court i.e., I Additional

Sessions Judge, Khammam;

ii) He shall deposit the original certificate of registration in

respect of the crime vehicle with the designated Court.

However, the designated Court shall issue its certified KL,J Crl.P. No.4156 of 2021

copy to the petitioner to enable him to ply the vehicle on

road without there-being any hindrance; and

iii) He shall give an undertaking to the effect that he shall

produce the crime vehicle as and when required either

before the Investigating Officer or before the Court and

that he shall not alienate, alter or change the nature of

vehicle.

13. In view of the above, the present Criminal Petition is

allowed quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2020 in Crl.M.P.

No.343 of 2020 in Cr.No.71 of 2020 passed by the learned I

Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

04th June, 2021 Mgr