In a NDPS case, the Tripura High Court ordered the release of the vehicle confiscated for carrying contraband substances. A single Judge Bench of the Court held that if no one comes forward to claim the seized vehicle, it can be disposed of by sale under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). However, Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act does not prevent the owner from filing an application after the expiry of one month from the seized date.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed for quashing the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS). The learned Single Judge had declined to release the offending vehicle of the Petitioner. The vehicle along with its driver was detained and during the search of the vehicle, 215 kg dried ‘ganja’ in plastic packets was recovered. After the investigation, the case was registered against the Petitioner and driver under various provisions of the NDPS Act and for violating different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Petitioner claimed that he was totally unaware of the illegal activities done by the driver of his vehicle, but the Learned Single Judge disbelieved his contention. Being aggrieved by the order, the present petition was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that irreparable harm was already caused to the vehicle as it had been kept under the open sky at the police station. Further, the Counsel, by relying on various Apex Court Judgements, contended that the law empowers the Court to release the vehicle in favor of its true owner on his furnishing appropriate security and under the terms and conditions in any of the situations. In regard to the alleged act, the Counsel submitted that the driver manufactured fake number plates and carried contraband in the said vehicle beyond the knowledge of the Petitioner, for which Petitioner cannot be held liable and deprived of his livelihood by way of detaining his vehicle for such a long period of time.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended by the learned Counsel of the Respondent that the owner cannot plead innocence, particularly when it had been established that a chamber was made in the cabin of the vehicle for carrying such contraband. This act clearly shows that such arrangements in the vehicle were made with the knowledge and connivance of the owner. In regard to the Petitioner’s contention that his vehicle has to be released after furnishing bond, the Counsel cited an order dated 10.01.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. Petn No.01 of 2020. In this order, the release of the vehicle was denied on the ground that seized vehicle is a means of transportation of banned drugs liable to be confiscated. He further contended that the Petitioner should have come within one month but he came after a long lapse of time.
Observation of the Court
After considering the submissions of both sides, this Court had relied on a plethora of judgements to hold that whatever the situation, it is not of any use to keep a seized vehicle at the police stations for a long period. In regard to the submission of the Respondent that the owner is not entitled to release of the vehicle as he had not come forward within 30 days from the date of seizure, the reliance was placed on Balkrishna Mishra vs. State of Tripura in Crl.Petn No. 32 of 2022. In this case, it was held that section 63(2) of the NDPS Act does not prevent the owner of the vehicle from filing an application for the release of his vehicle on bail at any stage of the proceeding or even during the proceeding of confiscation. In view of the above-mentioned observations, this Court ordered to bail out the seized vehicle of the Petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court allowed the plea of the Petitioner to bail out his seized vehicle after submitting the bail bond along with the original documents of the vehicle.
Case Title: Abdul Kalim v. State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay
Case no.: Crl.Petn.No.47 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S.Lodh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ratan Datta and Mr. S. Debnath
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments