Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 417 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2019 IN CRL.M.C.NO.195/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.12/2018 OF ALATHUR EXCISE RANGE, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: NAVEEN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SUMI WILLIAM, CHIRAMEL, THURUTHIYIL UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD, VENNALA. BY ADV.SMT.C.P.JYOTHY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR AALATHUR RANGE OFFICE PALAKKAD THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.C.K.PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON 29.10.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021 Revision on hand is directed against the order passed by the Court of Sessions, Palakkad (for short 'the court') on 13.02.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.195 of 2019.
2. Revision Petitioner is the owner of motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KL-07-CP-5249 which has been seized by the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Alathur in Crime No.12 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). An application moved by the revision petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking release of the motorcycle in interim custody was dismissed by the court for the reason that the investigation is at its preliminary stage and therefore, the release of the vehicle would hamper the rest of the investigation.
3. Smt.C.P.Jyothy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner was employed at Saudi Arabia for 2 ½ years and returned to Kerala only on -:3:-
23.11.2018. According to her, he has no involvement in the act alleged based on which the crime was registered. According to her, the factum could well be established from the flight tickets marked alongwith the revision on hand as Annexures A2 and A2a. The learned counsel has also urged that the vehicle was missing from the courtyard of his friend's house on 20.12.2018 and he came to know on 21.12.2018 that it was stolen
therefrom. He complained before the police and that is evidenced from the copy of the complaint and receipt obtained from the police station marked in evidence as Annexure A5 and Annexure A6. According to the learned counsel the application seeking release of the vehicle was filed at the concluding stage of investigation and the observation of the court that it was filed at the initial stage of investigation is totally devoid of basis. The learned counsel pleaded for interference with the order under challenge for the reasons stated above.
4. Section 52-A has been introduced into the NDPS Act,
by Section 14 of Act 2 of 1989 with effect from 29.05.1989. As per the provision, the Central Government is empowered to issue a Notification, having regard to the hazardous nature, -:4:-
vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration to dispose of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances soon after their seizure by such officer and in such manner, the Government may determine from time to time after following the procedure provided under sub-section (2) thereof. Therefore, the power to specify the kind of articles or conveyances liable for disposal is on the Central Government. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court a Notification issued by the Central Government which
provides that all kinds of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances are liable for disposal soon after their seizure. Therefore, Court of Sessions is not empowered to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to direct release of the vehicle in interim custody of the petitioner.
5. The Court of Sessions, Palakkad has not adverted to
Section 52-A which speaks about immediate disposal of the seized contraband and the vehicle involved in a crime. However, it passed an order declining release of the vehicle in interim -:5:- custody correctly and properly. Interference with the impugned
order is totally uncalled for, for the above reasons.
Revision Petition fails for the reasons and is dismissed. sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB/ttb