KARUPPASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the owner of the motor vehicle namely, a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN-24-Q-2806 which was allegedly used by the accused in Crime No. 322 of 2014 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. As many as four persons have been arraigned as accused in the said case. The petitioner does not figure as an accused in the said case. The said vehicle was seized by the police on the premise that it was used by the accused persons, out of whom one is the father in law of the petitioner herein, for transporting 49.600 Kgs of ganja. The seized vehicle was produced before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai and remanded as a case property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 901 of 2014 claiming that the interim custody of the vehicle be given to him pending investigation and pending disposal of the criminal case. The said petition was resisted by the respondent police contending that the vehicle should not be released as it was used for transporting commercial quantity of ganja and that the investigation and the trial of the case might lead ultimately to the confiscation of the vehicle. It was also contended that the release of the vehicle would encourage the petitioner to allow the use of the vehicle for committing similar offences. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, after hearing, sustained the objections raised by the police and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Questioning the legality and sustainability of the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The submissions made by Mr. G. Marimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondent Police are heard. The copy of the order impugned in the revision and the copies of the documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.