Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiT. Kiran Kumar vs Pentamsetty Harinadh Harinatha ... on 30 September, 2021THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI\n\n           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.611 of 2021\n\nORDER:-\n\n\n      This Criminal Revision Case is filed underSections 397and401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟)\n\nassailing the order dated 01.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of\n\n2020 in NDPS SC No.02 of 2020 on the file of learned I Additional\n\nDistrict Judge, Chittoor, whereby the petition filed seeking interim\n\ncustody of car bearing No.AP 26 AF 0777 was dismissed.\n\n\n2.    The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the\n\nsubject vehicle which is seized in connection with crime No.59 of\n\n2018 of Gangavaram Police Station, registered for the offence\n\npunishable underSection 20(b)(ii)(A)of the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act") andSection 5(3)(a)of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products\n\n(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and\n\nCommerce, Production, Supply andDistribution) Act, 2003 (for\n\nshort „COTP Act‟), on the allegation of its usage in transportation of\n\nganja and tobacco products. Pursuant to registration of the crime,\n\nthe petitioner approached the Court below seeking interim custody\n\nof the subject vehicle but the Court below dismissed the said\n\npetition. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.\n\n\n3.    Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on\n\nbehalf of the respondent-State.24.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly\n\nthe petitioner was not present at the time of alleged transportation\n\nof ganja and seizure of the vehicle. He submits that there is no\n\ndispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and it gets\n\ndamaged if it is kept idle for long period. Hence, he prays to grant\n\ninterim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.5.    The Court below has dismissed the petition by observing\n\nthat as perSection 60of the NDPS Act, the vehicles used for\n\ncommission of the offence underNDPS Actare liable to be\n\nconfiscated and the investigating officer has not yet taken steps\n\nunder Sub-Section (2) ofSection 52-Aof the NDPS Act for using\n\nthe sample of drugs and conveyance as primacy evidence and\n\nsince the case is at commencement of trial, the Court declined to\n\ngrant interim custody of the vehicle.6.    It is appropriate to extractSections 451and457of Cr.P.C\n\nwhich read thus:451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in\n      certain cases.-When any property is produced before any\n      Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make\n      such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property\n      pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and if the property\n      is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise\n      expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence\n      as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed\n      of.Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "property" includes(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before\n      the Court or which is in its custody.(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been\n      committed or which appears to have been used for the\n      commission of any offence.37.    Thus,Section 451of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to pass\n\nappropriate orders with regard to such property, for the proper\n\ncustody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial.8.    457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.(1)     Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is\n      reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and\n      such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an\n      inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks\n      fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such\n      property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if\n      such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and\n      production of such property.(2)    If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may\n      order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if\n      any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown,\n      the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a\n      proclamation specifying the articles of which such property\n      consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto,\n      to appear before him and establish his claim within six months\n      from the date of such proclamation.9.    In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the\n\npetitioner‟s ownership over the vehicle. It is clear that there is no\n\nbar under theNDPS Acton the Courts to order for interim custody\n\nof a vehicle which is seized in a crime registered for the offences\n\nunder the said Act.Section 63of the NDPS Act reads thus:"(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is\n      convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide\n      whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to\n      confiscation undersection 60orsection 61orsection 62and, if it\n      decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation\n      accordingly.(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be\n      liable to confiscation undersection 60orsection 61orsection 62,\n      but the person who committed the offence in connection\n      therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire\n      into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation4accordingly: Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or\n      thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of\n      seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right\n      thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of\n      his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other\n      than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, 1[controlled\n      substance,] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is\n      liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion\n      that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any\n      time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section\n      shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds\n      of the sale.10.   From the above it is clear that the Court shall decide\n\nwhether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under\n\nthe provisions of theNDPS Actis liable for confiscation or not only\n\nat the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused.\n\nBut there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot\n\nbe ordered. Further if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless\n\nand there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting destroyed.11.   Taking into consideration the fact that there is no dispute\n\nwith regard to the ownership of the vehicle and the settled law this\n\nCourt feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to\n\nthe petitioner by imposing certain conditions.12.   Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the\n\norder dated 01.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2020 in NDPS\n\nSC No.02 of 2020 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge,\n\nChittoor, is set aside. The vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing No.AP 26\n\nAF 0777 is ordered to be given interim custody to the petitioner on\n\ncondition of his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-\n\n(Rupees three lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum to the\n\nsatisfaction of learned I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. It is5further directed that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or\n\nchange its physical features or create any encumbrance or charge\n\non the same. He shall produce the vehicle whenever he is directed\n\nto do so by the lower court.As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are\n\nclosed.____________________________________\n                                  JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI\n\n\nDate : 30.09.2021\nIKN6THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI\n\n\n\n                          Allowed\n\n\n\n\n           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.611 of 2021\n\n                        30.09.2021\n\nIKN