BALABHADRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the records. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2 (a) C.C. No. 21 of 2012 (N) rejecting the petitioner's application for interim release of the vehicle (motorcycle) bearing Registration No. OR-07-W-1879 which was involved in alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) The motor cycle of the present petitioner was seized by the Inspector-in-charge of Excise E.I. & E.B., Berhampur along with 9.5 Kg. of ganja from the possession of the accused, Gopal Krushna, Sahu, while he was transporting the same. On the basis of the prosecution report, 2 (a) C.C. Case No. 21 of 2012 has been initiated. Petitioner's application for interim release of the motor cycle has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur on the ground that the motor cycle was seized by the Excise Officials and not by the Police and therefore Section 457 Cr.P.C. has no application and that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of the vehicle unless the owner proves that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or that of his agent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle he has not been implicated as an accused in the aforesaid 2(a) C.C. No. 21 of 2012 (N) and that even if the motor cycle was seized by the Excise officials, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur cannot be said to have no jurisdiction to give release of the said vehicle in exercise of power under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that Section 457 Cr.P.C. will have no application when the vehicle in question has not been seized by a Police Officer.