INTELLIGENCE OFFICER Vs. SALA SAI YASHWANTH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned Special Judge granting interim custody of the vehicle/Maruthi Swift car bearing registration No.AP 37 DS 2191 to the respondent is challenged in this petition by the petitioner/complainant namely Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge except stating that the Special Court is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for the interim custody of conveyance/vehicle under Ss. 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. in cases arising out of provisions of NDPS Act, has not considered the case on merits. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to take into consideration that a vehicle seized in case of this nature is required for identification and if the vehicle is released, there is likelihood of the vehicle being not produced before the Court at the relevant time.

(3.) Learned counsel Ms.Maheshwari D.M., appearing for the petitioner has contended that in the vehicle in question, the accused were carrying contraband i.e., 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40 gms and methaqualone weighing 3 grams. She contended that the accused have used the vehicle to carry obnoxious drug and the MDMA which was seized in this case is commercial quantity. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Union of India Through C.R.P.F. 61 B.N. v. Union of India Through Central Excise Department (2008 SCC online Pat 392), she contended that Sec. 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of seized materials including Narcotic Drugs Substance, apparatus, utensils etc., used in commission of offence. Sec. 63 lays down procedure for confiscation of seized material and therefore, in the present case the vehicle in question in which the accused was carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs is liable to be confiscated. She contended that the allegations are serious in nature and therefore, the Special Judge was not justified in releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent. She has relied on para-9 of the above referred judgment, which reads as under: