THUSIF AHEMMED BENGRE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a typical case of misuse of the powers of seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an unregistered vehicle. The person driving the said vehicle was found possessing a small quantity of 40 Gms of ganja at about 8.15 a.m. on 24.12.2016. The said person was arrested by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Mananthavady, and the vehicle was seized as per a mahazar by him. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, a crime was registered against the said person as the first accused. Later the petitioner was also arraigned as second accused on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle. It appears that without making any enquiry and without application of mind the excise official quite mechanically arraigned the owner of the vehicle as an accused in the case involving a very small quantity of 40 Gms of ganja. The petitioner now seeks orders quashing the crime and further proceedings as against him. On 21.12.2017, this Court directed the Detecting Officer to appear in person and explain the circumstance in which the vehicle happened to be seized. The Detecting Officer accordingly appeared in Court and filed an affidavit explaining the reason for seizure. The reason stated by him in the affidavit is quite shabby and unacceptable. Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provides that any conveyance or vehicle used in carrying any Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances shall be liable to confiscation. For a property to be confiscated, or for a vehicle or conveyance to be confiscated under the NDPS Act, it must be a vehicle or conveyance used for carrying or transporting ganja. There is no such factual situation here. The vehicle was simply being driven by the driver, and in his possession a small quantity of ganja was seen. The Detecting Officer quite mechanically acted without knowing the spirit and purport of the law, and quite unnecessarily seized the vehicle. Ofcourse, the person found in possession of ganja is liable for prosecution appropriately. It is really fallacious to contend that the Detecting Officer found the vehicle being used for transporting or carrying ganja, when the quantity is a very small quantity of 40 gms, and not 40 Kgs. Anyway, as an interim measure, this Court directed the court below to release the vehicle to the petitioner on his executing a bond, by order dated 21.12.2017. Further conditions are not felt necessary in the above circumstances. Let appropriate final orders as regards the vehicle be passed by the trial court on conclusion of trial. I am not inclined to make further commends on this aspect. The Detecting Officer has tendered an unconditional apology also in the affidavit filed by him. Let such instances of illegal seizure be not repeated by him, and also the other Officers of the Excise, Police and other departments.

(2.) Now as regards the prayer to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner there is a report that on investigation the Excise Officials could not find out anything as against the petitioner, and so a report was filed in the court below on 05.12017 deleting him from the array of accused. Anyway, now that the petitioner stands deleted from the array of the accused there is no necessity of quashing the proceedings as against him. The report submitted by the Excise Official to that effect is recorded, and this Crl.M.C. is closed.