Tripura High Court
Smt. Nanda Rani Das vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Crl Petn No.48 of 2022
Smt. Nanda Rani Das
..... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura
..... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Date of hearing & judgment : 10th January, 2023
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.
[2] The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner to
challenge the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Bishalgarh in Bishalgarh P.S. Case
No.77 of 2021 and seeks release of the seized vehicle Maruti Van bearing
No.TR-01-AC-0599.
[3] Brief facts, leading to this case, are that in connection with
Bishalgarh PS Case No.77 of 2021, a Maruti Van bearing registration
No.TR-01-AC-0599 was seized and thereafter he filed an application
before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Bishalgarh, Tripura
and after hearing the parties vide impugned order dated 16.12.2021 rejected
the prayer of the petitioner.
[4] It is alleged that the petitioner was the registered owner of the
said vehicle (Maruti Van) and the Inspector of Bishalgarh police station
lodged a written complaint inter alia alleging that on 03.10.2021 at about
17:13 hours, the Officer-in-charge of Bishalgarh P.S received an
information over his mobile phone that one Maruti Van was coming from
Agartala with huge quantity of Eskuf (Cough Syrup). After the GD entry
was made, the police conducted raid, search and seizure as per NDPS Act
and detained the vehicle along with the driver and from the said Maruti
Van bearing registration No.TR-01-AC-0599, 480 numbers of bottles of
Eskuf (Cough Syrup) were seized.
[5] On receipt of the written complaint, a criminal case was
registered vide Bishalgarh PS Case No.77 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021 against
the driver of the vehicle. After registration of the case, police started
investigation and arrested the driver of the vehicle who happened to be son
of the petitioner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid
vehicle and the same was being driven by her elder son. It was further
alleged that without intimating anything to the petitioner, her son allegedly
carried the Eskuf. It was also alleged that the vehicle is a passenger vehicle
and the petitioner got the information that the driver of the vehicle carried
Eskuf in her vehicle.
[6] The petitioner filed an application before the learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh for releasing the vehicle in
favour of the petitioner owner. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by
the learned Special Judge on the ground that the petitioner failed to make
out prima facie case in her favour to get the vehicle released. The operative
portion of the order reads as follows :
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a
prima facie case in her favour to get the vehicle released.
Accordingly the prayer for release of the vehicle filed on
10.12.2021 stands rejected. However, it is also true that at this
stage, the confiscation of the seized vehicle u/s 60 of the NDPS Act
cannot be made as per prayer of the I/O. So that portion of the
prayer of the I/O is rejected. Thus it is for investigating agency and
for the prosecution to consider whether the seized vehicle may be
required to be sold in view of the second proviso to section 63(2) of
the NDPS Act read with the notification dated 16.01.2015 issued
u/s 52(A) of the NDPS Act by the Central Govt. wherein Para
9(5)(e) provides for sale of seized conveyance and in that event the
sale proceeds shall apply subject to the provisions of sub section
(2) of the Section 63 of the Act.
[7] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
learned Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, the petitioner filed
this present petition seeking the following relief :
"(I) ISSUE NOTICE, calling upon the respondent, to show cause as
to why an appropriate Direction/Order, shall not be issued, for
quashing/setting aside impugned Order dated 16.12.2021
(Annexure-4 infra), passed n Bishalgarh PS Case No.77 of 2021,
by the ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Bishalgarh, (Sri A.
Debnath), and thereafter, release (zimma) the seized vehicle Maruti
Van, bearing No. TR-01-AC-0599, in favour of the petitioner on
any terms and conditions;
(II) In the Ad-interim and thereafter, in the Interim, an Order in
terms of i. above;
(III) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make an Order absolute
in terms of i. and ii. above;
(IV) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
(V) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
(VI) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit
and proper;"
[8] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is not an accused person and further contends
that for the fault of the son of the petitioner, the petitioner should not
suffer. He further contends that there is no such allegation till date against
the petitioner and prays for setting aside the impugned order dated
16.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala,
Bishalgarh in Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.77 of 2021 and also seeks release of
the seized vehicle Maruti Van bearing No.TR-01-AC-0599.
[9] On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition contending that the learned
Special Judge did not commit any error in passing the order. The learned
Judge passed the order after appreciating the evidence on record.
Accordingly, he prays that the criminal petition filed by the petitioner be
dismissed.
[10] After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court is of the considered view that the petitioner failed to make out any
case that the vehicle in question has been detained unauthorisedly and
cannot be believed that the son of the petitioner is using the vehicle. It is
reasonably presumed that the acts which are committed by him are not
known to the mother/petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle. The
petitioner cannot be so ignorant of the acts committed by her accused son.
This Court finds no merit in the petition and directs dismissal of the same.
The order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS),
Sepahijala, Bishalgarh in Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.77 of 2021 is affirmed.
[11] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Dipesh
