The High Court quashed the Special Court order directing the accused to produce a motorcycle to the Drug Disposal Committee, holding that Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not deprive courts of their power to grant interim custody under Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. disposed of by quashing Annexure A4 order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1558 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 1/2023 OF DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ADARSH, AGED 21 YEARS AMBI KIZHAKKATHIL VEETIL, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690524 BY ADVS. S.K.SAJI SARAN SIVAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, NOORANAD EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690103
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.M.C.No.1558 of 2023
O R D E R
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.11
of 2022, registered at the Excise Range Office,
Nooranadu for the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. As per the
prosecution allegation, 1.707 grams of MDMA was recovered from the dress worn by the petitioner and from the motor cycle he was riding. The petitioner was arrested from the spot and the motorcycle was seized.
under Section 451 of Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the motorcycle. That petition was allowed by Annexure A1 subject to certain
conditions. As per Condition No.4 in Annexure A1, the petitioner should produce the vehicle as
-3-
Crl.M.C.No.1558 of 2023
and when required by the court. The prosecution later filed a petition for an order directing the petitioner to return the vehicle to the custody of the court. That application was filed on the premise that the vehicle ought to be produced before the Drug Disposal Committee constituted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. By Annexure A4 order, the Special Court allowed the petition
and directed the petitioner to return the motorcycle. Aggrieved by this, the Crl.M.C is filed.
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in extenso .
petitioner contended that, having released the vehicle, the Special Court could not have directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle back in court, I am not inclined to accept the contention since the vehicle was released only on
Crl.M.C.No.1558 of 2023
-4-
interim custody, subject to the condition that it will be produced before the court as and when required.
directing production to be unsustainable. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that this Court, after detailed consideration, has held in
Shanil and others v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC
OnLine Ker.1023] that, Section 52A does not take away the power of the jurisdictional court to consider petitions for interim custody of vehicles filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. It
was so held, since Section 52A provides only for preparation of the inventory by the investigating officer, certification by the jurisdictional court and forwarding of that inventory to the Drug Disposal Committee. This Court also taken into account the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC
-5-
Crl.M.C.No.1558 of 2023
273] by which the Division Bench decision of this
Court in Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and
others [2019 (5) KHC 401] stood impliedly overruled. It was in Shajahan (supra) that, Section 52A of the NDPS Act was held to have
denuded the powers of courts to grant interim custody of vehicles involved in NDPS crimes.
The Crl.M.C is hence disposed of, quashing
Annexure A4 order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
Crl.M.C.No.1558 of 2023
-6-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1558/2023
| PETITIONE | R ANNE | XURES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annexure | A1 | TRUE COPY OF THE | ORDER IN CRL. M.P. |
| 5032/2022 OF THE (VACATION JUDGE) 30.12.2022 |
SESSIONS COURT ALAPPUZHA DATED |
||
| Annexure | A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE 03.01.2022 FILED BEFORE THE HON'B ALAPPUZHA |
COMPLAINT DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LE SESSIONS JUDGE, |
| Annexure | A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER/ 23.01.2023 |
OBJECTION FILED BY ACCUSED DATED |
| Annexure | A4 | TRUE COPY OF THE | ORDER DATED |
| 16.02.2023 IN CR | L. M.P 01/2023 OF THE | ||
| LEARNED SESSIONS | JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Court had the power under Section 52A of the NDPS Act to direct the return of a vehicle on interim custody.
Whether Section 52A of the NDPS Act takes away the power of the jurisdictional court to consider petitions for interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shanil and others v. State of KeralaRelied on¶40
[2023 SCC OnLine Ker.1023] · Who else cites this
Sainaba v. State of KeralaRelied on¶42
[2022 (7) KHC 273]
Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and othersOverruled¶46
[2019 (5) KHC 401]
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Aradh
State of Kerala
Excise Circle Inspector, Nooranad
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.G. Arun
Parties & counsel
