Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 773 (TS)

Boda Laxmi v. State Of Telangana

2020-11-12

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to release the vehicle bearing No.TS-03-EW-2172 make of Maruthi Swift VDI seized in relation to F.I.R.No.150 of 2020 on the file of Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar district registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Perused the entire material on record. 3. The crime vehicle i.e., Maruthi Swift VDI bearing registration No.TS-03-EW-2172 was seized in Crime No.150 of 2020, pending on the file of Manakondur Police Station. The offence alleged against the accused therein is under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (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 of Cr.P.C. before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The same was returned on 20.10.2020 with an endorsement "This Court not having jurisdiction as per U/s 52-A of NDPS Act. Hence this petition may be return". 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 an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1741 of 2020, dated 12.03.2020. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 , Jagtar Sing v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.3542/2017, dated 09.11.2017), Sankar Das v. State of Tripura (Crl.Petn.No.9 of 2018, dated 16.03.2018) , Waish Ahmed v. The State of West Bengal (C.R.R. No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019), Abhijeet Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (Crl.Misc.Application No.368 of 2019, dated 10.04.2019), Manoj Kumar Pandy v. State of M.P. (CRR No.2971 of 2019, dated 27.08.2019), Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1440 of 2018, dated 28.10.2019), Ram Salone Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No.1215 of 2020, dated 04.09.2020). 6. In Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain guidelines in paragraph No.20, which are as follows: "20. 6. In Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 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. (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'." 7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, (2002) 10 SCC 283 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. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, (2002) 10 SCC 283 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 Desai, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 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 Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 the respective High Courts 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. 9. This Court vide order dated 12.03.2020 in Crl.P. No.1741 of 2020, relying upon the decisions in Jagtar Sing (S.B. Criminal Misc.(Pet.) No.3542/2017, dated 09.11.2017) and Waish Ahmed (C.R.R. No.382 of 2018, dated 18.01.2019) of different High Courts and also in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, (2002) 10 SCC 283 granted relief of interim custody to the owner of the vehicle on certain conditions. The Circular No.13/SO/2019, dated 15.07.2019 was issued by this Court by referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 . Section 52-A of the Act was also referred. 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. The offence alleged against the accused therein is under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act. The offence alleged against the accused therein is under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act. The petitioner failed to produce any document or proof to show that the crime vehicle was produced either before the Magistrate Court or before the designated Court under the Act. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the vehicle is with the police, Manakondur Police Station. 11. The Manakondur Police Station has not produced the crime vehicle with the designated Court so far. Admittedly, the crime vehicle was seized by the police on 5.6.2020, and till then the vehicle is lying 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. 13. In view of the above said legal position, this Criminal Petition is allowed, directing the Station House Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar district to produce the crime vehicle (i.e., Maruthi Swift VDI bearing registration No.TS-03-EW-2172) before the designated Court (I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar) 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 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the designated Court i.e., I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimangar; ii) He shall deposit the original registration certificate in respect of the crime vehicle with the designated Court. However, the designated Court shall issue its certified 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.