VIKRAM SINGH V/S STATE OF M.

P
CASE NO. – SCNDPS/105/21

1. Can the vehichle be transferred while in police custody

CRPC
- Section 451 : Order for Custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases
When any property is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial,
the Court may order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the
conclusion of inquiry or trial, and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay,
or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, 2 the Court may, after recording such evidence as
it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed off. For the purpose of this
section, property includes : (a)Property of any kind or document which is produced
before the Court or which is in its custody. (b)Any property regarding which an offence
appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the
commission of any offence.
- Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 enables a Magistrate to provide
for interim custody. The object of the Court that any property which is in the control of
the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed off by the Court under just and
proper order regarding its disposal. When the seizure is concerned with immovable
property like lands, houses etc., cannot be seized by a Police Officer under Section 102 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.

- Section 457 : Procedure by police upon seizure of property : This section applies when
case property is reported to a Magistrate by any police officer. Whenever the seizure of
property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this
Court, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or
Trial, the Magistrate may make such order regarding disposal, delivery of such property,
to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Under this section during an inquiry or
trial, the Magistrate may order disposal or delivery of such property to the person
entitled to. Scope of Magistrate has power to pass orders as to disposal or delivery of
property seized by police during investigation and brought to his notice before
 commencement of inquiry or trial. M.Muniswamy Vs. State of A.P. 1992 (3) ALT 50.
Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 of the court to pass an order for
custody of vehicle not produced before him in an inquiry or trial. Voruganti Seshachala
Venkateswarlu Vs. Government of A.P. 2003 (2) ALT 444.

The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Section 60(3)
(3)Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance or controlled substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or
conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the
owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance
and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

63. Procedure in making confiscations.—

(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, 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.
- Case law
 ( KERALA HIGH COURT ) B. Sudheendra Kumar, J. B. Hassainar Azeez —Petitioner
versus State of Kerala —Respondent ( Crl.MC.No.2138 of 2017 ) Decided on
12.4.2017.
Held: On a combined reading of Section 63 and sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS
Act, it is clear that when any conveyance used for carrying any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance is liable to confiscation, the confiscation order can be made by the
court only at the end of the trial and that itself, only after hearing the person who may claim
any right thereto and considering the evidence, if any, which he may produce in support of
the claim.

Section 51 of the NDPS Act provides that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Section 5 of the Code provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a
specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force,
or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed,
by any other law for the time being in force.

Section 5 of Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the code shall affect any special law. A special
law is a law applicable to a particular subject. The existence of a special law does not
exclude the operation of the Code unless the special law expressly or impliedly provides in
that regard, in which case, special law will apply.

There is no specific provision in the NDPS Act which expressly or impliedly excludes the
operation of Section 451 of the Code. The provisions of Section 451 of the Code are also not
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the NDPS Act, including Sections 60(3) and 63 of
the NDPS Act. Therefore, the court can invoke the general provisions of Section 451 of the
Code.

Going by the directions issued by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), it is
imperative on the part of the court to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle seized to
the registered owner if the registered owner is not prepared to accept the same, to the
insurance company. It was observed by the Apex Court that in case, where the vehicle is not
claimed by the accused, owner or the insurance company or by any third person, then the
said vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court.

The consideration will be different if the owner is not the accused. If the owner is not the
accused, the owner may be able to prove that the vehicle was so used without the
knowledge or connivance of the owner and that the owner had taken all reasonable
precautions against such use. Therefore, if the registered owner claiming the property is not
the accused, the court will be justified in releasing the vehicle to the owner on executing
sufficient bond with solvent sureties.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

Narayanan – Appellant V/S State By Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent

(CRL.R.C.No. 724 of 2023) Decided On : 13-06-2023.

1. Fact of the Case: The police caught the accused in possession of illegal substances
and registered a case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, owner of the seized
vehicle, filed a petition for the return of his vehicle, which was dismissed by the trial
court.

2. Finding of the Court: The court found that keeping the vehicle idle in open space
would diminish its value and serve no purpose. It also considered the petitioner's
readiness to provide guarantee and security for the vehicle's return.

3. Issues: The main issue was the return of the seized vehicle and the potential risk of
it being used for illegal activities.

4. Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of Gujarat,
directing the return of seized articles to the owner to protect the property.

5. Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order
was set aside. The interim custody of the seized vehicle was ordered to be handed
over to the petitioner under specific conditions. Pag

 (IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA) G.B. Pattnaik, A. Pasayat, JJ.

MIHIR KUMAR RATH - APPELLANT V/S RABINARAYAN PRUSTY AND OTHERS -

RESPONDENT (A.H.O. No. 33 of 1987) Decided On : 29-06-1992.
- The court held that the registered owner of a vehicle may not always be the real owner,
and the transfer of ownership must precede the application for transfer of ownership.
- The failure to report the transfer may have penal consequences, but it does not prevent
the passing of property.

- The registration book is not a document of title, and a presumption can be drawn that
the person named in the certificate of registration is the owner of the vehicle in the
absence of other materials. However, the court can reach a conclusion on the real owner
of a vehicle when there is a dispute regarding ownership.

2. For the purpose of NDPS act the reg. Owner of a vehcile is aslo
considered as accused?

- (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Smt. Gyanti Singh vs The State Of

Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2021.
- The applicant has filed the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S.
Act, Distt.-Rewa (MP), in Special Case No.1517/2021, whereby the application filed by
the applicant under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for handing over the seized vehicle
Bolero bearing registration No. MP-17-CB-6788 on Supurdginama has been rejected.

- matter in brief is that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No. MP-17-CB-6788 which has been seized in connection with Crime
No.308/21 registered at Police Station Hanumana, Distt. Rewa in respect of offence
punishable under Sections 8, 20 & 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/ 13 of the Drugs
Control Act.

- Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the registered
owner by the aforesaid vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. She was not transporting
illegal Codeine cough syrup 1320 bottles from the vehicle. It is further submitted that
the said vehicle which is now kept in the police station, be released on Supurdginama
otherwise due to its non-use, the same would useless after sometime. There is no need
to keep the said vehicle in custody.

- learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted
that the applicant's vehicle was found to be involved in a serious crime registered
 under NDPS Act and if the vehicle in question is handed over, the same would be used
for commission of another offence.

- revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set-aside. The seized
vehicle shall be given to the applicant