BALAKRUSHNA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur, in G.R. Case No. 761 of 2003 in an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-A-6804 Maruti Mini Van. The vehicle in question was seized on 1.8.2003 by the Badachana Police in connection with the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur for interim release of the seized vehicle in question on the ground that the petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about the carrying of the puppy-husk and he had instructed the driver of the vehicle not to carry any objectionable materials in the vehicle. He further stated in his petition that from the date of seizure the car is lying at the police station being exposed to the sun and the rain and thereby deteriorating the condition day to day.

(3.) MR . S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the vehicle is kept at the police station for a long period by not adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure which creates difficulty for keeping the vehicle in safe custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, (i) while the Court considering the application for interim release of the vehicle the Court should look into the fact that the owner of the vehicle would not suffer, and (ii) it is the duty of the police to keep the seized vehicle in safe custody and it should not be damaged or deteriorated in condition. Mr. G.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and stated that since the vehicle is involved in the N.D.P.S. Act it is liable to be confiscated to the State. Therefore, in no circumstances the vehicle can be released in favour of the owner. He also argued that there is no provision in the Act for interim release of the vehicle since it is a special Act. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner as the owner had, in his active knowledge, allowed the driver to transport contraband articles in the said vehicle. Therefore, the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Judge has rightly rejected the application.