Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Prime Movers Mobility ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.573 of 2021
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") challenging the common order dated 31.12.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.418 of 2019 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in connection with Crime No.295 of 2018 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Narsiptanam, whereby the Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 457 of Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of Motor Cab Mahindra XUV 500 R-FWD-W4 bearing Registration No.KA03 AD 3241.
2. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below dismissed the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C on the ground that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated to the State, if ultimately the case results in conviction. It has further observed that the vehicle was used for transportation of Ganja and as the investigation is still pending, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the case. Learned counsel submits that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and moreover, there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that just because the investigation is pending, 2 that cannot be a ground to refuse the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if a vehicle is seized under NDPS Act for being used in transporting narcotic goods, the owner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle and this Court has granted interim custody of the vehicles in similar cases. Hence, this petition may be allowed.
5. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:
457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.
6. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order property be delivered to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit.
7. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle. It is clear that 3 there is no bar under the NDPS Act on the Courts to order for interim custody of a vehicle which is seized in a crime registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. Section 63 of the NDPS Act reads thus:
"(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.
(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly: Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, 1[controlled substance,] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.
8. From the above, it is clear that the Court shall decide whether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act is liable for confiscation or not only at the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused. But there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be ordered. Further, if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.
9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of settled law, this 4 Court feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions.
10. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the common order dated 31.12.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.418 of 2019 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is set aside. Motor Cab Mahindra XUV 500 R-FWD-W4 bearing Registration No.KA03 AD 3241 is ordered to be given interim custody to petitioner on condition of his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 20th September, 2021 PVD 5 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Allowed CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.573 of 2021 20th September, 2021 PVD