Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Navnath Marathe, was the owner of a Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No. MH-12-EF-5860. He was also accused no. 2 in NDPS (Special) Case No. 2/2010 arising out of C.R. No. III-57/2009 registered with Pachod Police Station. On 13th December 2009, the petitioner's jeep was hired by accused no. 1 Firoz for carrying cotton from Georai to Pachod. The petitioner claimed he had no knowledge of the contents of the gunny bags loaded in the jeep. While proceeding from Pachod to Rohilagad, police stopped the jeep and found gunny bags containing ganja. An offence was registered under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(1), 22, 29 of the NDPS Act, and the jeep was seized. The petitioner was granted bail on 26th January 2010. He then filed an application for release of the vehicle, which was rejected by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad, on 20th March 2010, on the ground that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed that the NDPS Act does not contain any provision prohibiting release of a vehicle on supurdnama pending trial. The vehicle is not liable to confiscation until the accused is convicted. The Court held that the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the application. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on supurdnama upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - Release on Supurdnama - NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8(C), 20(b)(1), 22, 29 - The petitioner, owner of a Mahindra Max Jeep seized in connection with an NDPS offence, sought release of the vehicle pending trial. The Sessions Court rejected the application on the ground that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act. The High Court held that the NDPS Act does not contain any provision prohibiting release of a vehicle on supurdnama pending trial, and that the vehicle is not liable to confiscation until the accused is convicted. The Court directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on supurdnama upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act can be released to the owner pending trial, and whether the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the application for interim custody of the vehicle.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 20th March 2010, and directed the Incharge of Pachod Police Station to release the Mahindra Max Jeep bearing No. MH-12-EF-5860 to the petitioner on supurdnama upon the petitioner furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and an undertaking not to transfer or alienate the vehicle.
Law Points
- Release of vehicle on supurdnama
- interim custody of seized vehicle
- NDPS Act does not bar release of vehicle pending trial
- owner's right to property
- vehicle not liable to confiscation until conviction
