9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station B-Division, For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 1 of 14 Amritsar and has cited judgments passed by this Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 561, Iqbal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 612 and Raghbir Singh alias Beera vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 343, in which the vehicles in the NDPS Act case have been ordered to be released on sapurdari. This Court has already taken different view in CRR No.3231 of 2014 decided on 12.12.2014 titled as Kirandeep vs. State of Punjab, that the vehicle in NDPS Act case cannot be released on sapurdari. Therefore, there are different views of the Single Benches of this Court. In view of the above position, the present case be put up before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench on the point 'whether vehicle used for transporting the narcotics etc. can be released on sapurdari or not'. 3. In the above background, the present revision petition has been referred to decide the point whether the vehicle used for transporting the narcotics could be released on sapurdari or not. 4. The b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of . Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "property" includes- (a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody. (b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. - (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 4 of 14 been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions, one can come to a conclusion that each of those provisions deal with a different situation. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with interim custody of the seized property which has been produced before the Court. Section 452 Cr.P.C. speaks of the disposal of the seized property after enquiry or trial in a criminal Court is For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 6 of 14 concluded. Section 457 Cr.P.C. applies to a situation where the property which has been seized by the police was not produced before the Court. 10. In the landmark judgement in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took serious note of the fact that a large number of seized vehicles and articles were kept in the police station totally unattended. Finding that there was no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Judicial Magistrates to exercise the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. expeditiously and judiciously and entrust interim custody of articles and vehicles seized to the owner of the property or to the person who is entitled to be in possession of the property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicle was used for committing the crime, the vehicle which was kept in the open would have substantially deteriorated. Likewise, if the Courts take a final decision that the vehicle For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 8 of 14 was not at all used for commission of the crime or the vehicle was used without the knowledge of the owner thereof, the owner will have to collect only the scrap of the vehicle. In other words, nobody is going to be benefited out of idle parking of vehicle totally unattended in the premises of the police station. 14. Sections 60(3) and 63 of NDPS Act also have relevance to the issue involved in this case for determination. Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:- "60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.- (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above provisions under the NDPS Act, we find that the trial Court has to take a decision as to whether a vehicle is liable to confiscation only on conclusion of the trial. A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act cannot be kept idle to the disadvantage of everyone concerned till the order of confiscation is passed on conclusion of trial. 17. Learned Single Judge of this Court in CRR No.3231 of 2014 Kirandeep vs. State of Punjab decided on 12.12.2014, having relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma, 2005(9) SCC 330 and judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 300, held that release of the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act during the trial of the case is in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and that therefore, the question of interfering with the decision taken by learned Special Judge not to release the vehicle for interim custody does not arise for consideration. 18. A brief judgement in Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 11 of 14 Verma, 2005(9) SCC 330, reads as follows:- "Heard the counsel for the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be released on sapurdari. 20. Therefore, in our view, the decision taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRR No.3231 of 2014 on 12.12.2014 based on the decision in Dinesh Kumar Verma's case (supra) does not reflect the correct proposition of law. In fact, the views taken by the learned Single Judges of this Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 561, Iqbal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 612 and Raghbir Singh alias Beera vs. State of Punjab, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 343, reflect the correct proposition of law. 21. In the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to For Subsequent orders see CRM-23019-2016 13 of 14 hold that there is no provision under the NDPS Act debarring the release of the vehicle for interim custody. The provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. which is found not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act is applicable to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act as well. No differential treatment to the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is contemplated either under the provisions of the NDPS Act or under the ratio laid down by the Court of law. In our considered view, the law laid down b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
