Himachal Pradesh High Court
___________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 October, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.1119 of 2022
Date of Decision: 03.10.2023
___________________________________________________
Nandani
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
of
...Respondent
___________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1
___________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
___________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. in case Cr.MP No.803/2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle No.HP34F-6768 alongwith its documents and keys was dismissed being not maintainable.
2. The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that she had purchased a vehicle bearing registration 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:33:22 :::CIS 2No.HP34F-6768 in the month of January, 2022, which was .
financed by her from TATA Motors Finance Limited and she had paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as margin money and the rest of the amount was to be paid by her through EMI. As per the petitioner, during financial investigation of case FIR No.70/022, of dated 30.06.2022, under Section 21 of NDPS Act registered against one Tinku @ Rinku at Police Station Patlikuhal, District rt Kullu, H.P., who was found in possession of 6 grams of heroin, the police had wrongly gathered the information that the accused had purchased the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner from the earnings of the illegal trade of narcotics, as such, the vehicle in question was seized by the police in connection with financial investigation of the case under Section 68-F of NDPS Act.
3. The respondent-State filed reply to the petition, wherein it has been averred that during financial investigation of the case, it was found that accused Tinku @ Rinku had purchased the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner in the year 2022 and doubtful transactions were found in the bank accounts of the petitioner. Accordingly, the police had ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:33:22 :::CIS 3 taken into possession the vehicle in question in connection with .
the financial investigation under Section 68-F of NDPS Act and the competent authority was also informed. During financial investigation, the petitioner was directed to produce the documents qua purchase of the vehicle, but she could not of produce the valid documents.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as rt well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and also gone through the material available on record. The case of the petitioner is that she is not the wife of accused Tinku @ Rinku and the name of her husband is Mani Ram and the vehicle in question was financed by her from TATA Motors Finance Ltd. and she had paid Rs.1,30,000/- as margin money in the month of January, 2022.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question as per the RC Annexure P-1, annexed with the petition. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the police in case FIR No.70/022, dated 30.06.2022, under Section 21 of NDPS Act registered against accused Tinku @ Rinku at Police Station ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:33:22 :::CIS 4 Patlikuhal in connection with financial investigation of the case .
under Section 68-F of NDPS Act.
6. As per Section 68-F(2) of NDPS Act, any order made under sub-section (1) shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within of a period of thirty days of its being made. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 68-F (2) of NDPS Act , which rt reads as under:-
"(2) Any order made under sub-section (1) shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within a period of thirty days of its being made.
Explanation.---For the purposes of this section, "transfer of property" means any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment or other alienation of property and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes-
(a) the creation of a trust in property;
(b) the grant or creation of any lease, mortgage, charge, easement, licence, power, partnership or interest in property;
(c) the exercise of a power of appointment of property vested in any person, not the owner of the property, to determine its disposition in favour of any person other than the donee of the power; and
(d) any transaction entered into by any person with intent thereby to diminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person."
7. From the perusal of the record, it has become clear from the record that order of seizure of the vehicle in question ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:33:22 :::CIS 5 has not been confirmed by the competent authority as required .
under Section 68-F (2) of NDPS Act, which stipulates that any order made under sub-section (1) shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within a period of thirty days of its being made.
of
8. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, since the order of seizure of vehicle rt bearing registration No. HP34F-6768 has not been confirmed by the competent authority as required under Section 68-F(2) of NDPS Act, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu is quashed and set aside and the vehicle bearing registration No.HP34F-6768 alongwith its documents and keys is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
The petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
October 03, 2023 Judge
(VH)
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2023 20:33:22 :::CIS