Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Reliance has been placed by the respondents on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Nahoorkani case (supra),the material portion of which is quoted hereunder :-

“12.Further, the provision under Section 63 of the NDPS Act is clear that the decision regarding confiscation had got to be taken during the trial and not after it and the right of the State to confiscate the conveyance and articles or things seized under this Act is irrespective of the result of the trial. In view of the provision under Section 63 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 will stand modified to the extent and any claimant to the property will be obliged to satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the NDPS Act before he is returned the custody of the vehicle taken into consideration when it was being used for transporting a narcotic substance. Therefore, when the conveyance is seized under the NDPS Act, the return of property does not arise as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contemplated under Sections 451 and 452 of Cr.P.C and it is liable to be confiscated under Section 63 of the NDPS Act. The Magistrate may not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C in the light of the Special Rule made under Section 52A of the Act.

26. However, the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 63 would come into play only on the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 63 gets satisfied. Release of a vehicle by filing a petition u/s 451 Cr.P.C. is a general provision, but where the said seizure of vehicle is the result of invocation of provision under the NDPS Act, the procedures https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contemplated under the NDPS Act, which is a special enactment, needs to be satisfied before the release of the vehicle u/s 451 Cr.P.C. could be ordered.

31. From the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that it is only the owner of the vehicle, who could claim for interim custody of the property, viz., conveyance, by filing petition before the Special Court u/s 451 Cr.P.C. and upon such petition being filed, subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated u/s 60 (3) and proviso to 63 (2) of the NDPS Act, it is for the Special Court to pass appropriate orders. It is further made clear that it is only the Special Court, which is conferred with powers and jurisdiction to decide a petition filed u/s 451 Cr.P.C. with regard to interim custody of the property, viz., the conveyance, by following the mandate contemplated u/s 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and by virtue of the procedure contemplated u/s 451 Cr.P.C.and strict adherence to Section 451 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable but for the provisions of Sections 60 (3) and 63 (2) of the NDPS Act.”

9. From the above decision it is clear that it is only the owner of the vehicle, who could claim for interim custody of the property, viz., https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis conveyance, by filing petition before the Special Court u/s 451 Cr.P.C. and upon such petition being filed, subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated u/s 60 (3) and proviso to 63 (2) of the NDPS Act, it is for the Special Court to pass appropriate orders. It is further made clear that it is only the Special Court, which is conferred with powers and jurisdiction to decide a petition filed u/s 451 Cr.P.C. with regard to interim custody of the property, viz., the conveyance, by following the mandate contemplated u/s 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and by virtue of the procedure contemplated u/s 451 Cr.P.C.and strict adherence to Section 451 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable but for the provisions of Sections 60 (3) and 63 (2) of the NDPS Act.