Kappala Upender vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1852 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4772 OF 2021

ORDER:

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

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the order dated 18.03.2020 in

Crl.M.P. No.137 of 2020 in Cr.No.239 of 2019 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 (Maruthi Ertiga) No.TS 11EJ 5566 as an

interim custody.

2. Heard Mr. Tarak Abhilash, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of respondent - State. Perused the material on record.

3. The crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Ertiga bearing registration

No.TS 11EJ 5566 was seized in Crime No.239 of 2019 by the Police

of Raghunadhapalem Police Station. The offences alleged against the

accused are under Section - 304A of IPC and Section - 8 (c) read with

20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(for short 'Act').

4. The petitioner herein 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.137 of 2020 in Crime No.239 of 2019 seeking for KL,J Crl.P. No.4772 of 2021

release of the said crime vehicle as an interim custody. But, the same

was dismissed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam,

vide order dated 18-03-2020 on the ground that the crime vehicle was

involved in transportation of ganja and, therefore, necessary

procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the Act to be followed

and that 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. 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- 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.

. (2016) 3 SCC 379 KL,J Crl.P. No.4772 of 2021

(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 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'."

6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat2, the

Apex Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep

. (2002) 10 SCC 283 KL,J Crl.P. No.4772 of 2021

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. 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, various High

Courts in 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 ordered for release of the vehicles

seized in the crimes for the offences under the Act.

7. Relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Mohanlal1, the respective High Courts in the

aforesaid judgments have also held that the Magistrates/Designated

Courts under the Act have to release crime vehicles seized in

connection with crimes for the offences under the Act on verification

of ownership documents and on imposition of certain conditions.

. 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.4772 of 2021

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

2020, relying upon the judgments 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 Apex Court in Mohanlal1. Section 52-A of the Act was

also referred therein.

9. In view of the principle laid down by the 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 petitioner as owner of the vehicle and registration number are

specifically mentioned. The petitioner herein is not an accused in the

crime. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section -

304A of IPC and 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.

10. As discussed supra, the Police of Raghunadhapalem Police

Station has not produced the crime vehicle with the designated Court KL,J Crl.P. No.4772 of 2021

so far. Admittedly, the crime vehicle was seized by the police and

kept it with them.

11. As discussed supra, the 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 discussion,

the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.137 of 2020 in

Cr.No.239 of 2019 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge,

Khammam is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Station House

Officer, Raghunadhapalem Police Station, Khammam District, is

directed to produce the crime vehicle (i.e., Maruti Ertiga bearing

registration No.TS 11EJ 5566 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 upon

imposing certain conditions to its satisfaction.

12. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.

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

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 28th June, 2021 Mgr