Allowed

Velkumar Arunachalam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2021CRLRC/217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petitioner's petition to set aside an order dismissing their application for interim custody of a seized lorry. The Court held that since ownership was undisputed and the vehicle was not involved in the transport of drugs itself, it should be released on a bond to prevent damage and idleness.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the lorry (No.TN 30 BF 5074) ordered to be granted to the petitioner on execution of a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety.

Velkumar Arunachalam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.217 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to set aside the order dated 02.02.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2021 in crime No.1 of 2021 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor wherein the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of container lorry bearing No.TN 30 BF 5074 was dismissed.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in brief is:

¶6

The petitioner’s vehicle was seized in crime No.1 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(i), 20(b), 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) on the ground that the subject vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of ganja. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the petitioner approached the Court below seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle but the same was dismissed by holding that commercial quantity of ganja was transported in the said vehicle by A1 and A2 and investigation is at threshold. The plea of the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the alleged offence was not accepted by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

¶7

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

¶8

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who is owner of the subject vehicle is unconnected with the offence and his vehicle was seized though there is no necessity to seize the vehicle for the purpose of enquiry or trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if a vehicle is seized under NDPS Act for use of the vehicle in transporting narcotic goods, the owner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle and if it is kept idle for long time it will get damaged. He further submits that this Court has granted interim custody of the vehicles in similar cases. Hence, this petition may be allowed.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the subject vehicle.

¶11

It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads thus:

¶12

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property .

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when

¶16

there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order delivery of the property to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit.

¶17

¶18

There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s ownership over the vehicle. It is clear that 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 for the offences under the said Act. Section 63 of the NDPS Act reads thus:

¶19

“(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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 destroyed.

¶22

¶23

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the settled law this Court feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 02.02.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2021 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is set aside. The vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.TN 30 BF 5074 is ordered to be given interim custody to the petitioner on condition of his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

¶25

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

¶26

____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

Date : 17.03.2021 IKN

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

Allowed

¶31

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.217 of 2021

¶32

17.03.2021

¶33

IKN

¶34

Velkumar Arunachalam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velkumar Arunachalam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalintha Bhanu Prakash Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalintha Bhanu Praksah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Prathikantam Gunavardhan Raju Vs Prathikantham Uma Venkata Satyarenuka

Janam Nagaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondamanchali Manchali Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh