Prayer
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai on 17.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.7711/2023 in C.C.No.795/2023, on the file of 1st respondent
Facts
The petitioner is the owner of the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-AT-8264, which was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.185 of 2023 and shown as case property in C.C.No.795 of 2023 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the Norcotics Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioner filed a petition seeking return of Auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-AT-8264 in Crl.M.P.No.7711 of 2023 before the learned I Additional Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai. The learned I Additional Special Judge, by order dated 17.11.2023 dismissed the return of property petition, against which, the present revision has been filed.
There is no bar to release the property in NDPS Act the order
4.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she is not an accused in this case. The petitioner let out the Auto for rent to A1/Balamurugan. Further no contraband was seized from the petitioner. It is seen that from the date of seizure, the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather, further detention would cause damage to the vehicle, in result, the value of the vehicle will get diminished and vehicle would become immobile. Added to it, the Apex Court in the case of Sainaba vs. The State of Kerala and another in Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 [SLP (CRL.) No.72080/2022] by following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2002 10 SCC 283” released the vehicle which was involved in the NDPS Act. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected return of property by referring to the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.41 of 2019 [Nahoorkani vs. The State] dated 16.06.2023, but it is seen that in the said order, the decision of the Apex Court in Sainaba’s case has not been referred to. In view of the decision of the Apex Court on this point as laid down which is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to allow return of property.
Party
Mariyammal … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, Redhills PEW Police Station, Chennai. 2.Puja Finance Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Goutam Chand … Respondents – Crl.R.C.No.2173 of 2023 – 05.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
https://hcmadras.tn.gov.in/order_view.php?fileName=MjAyM18yMDEzMDAwMjE3MzIwMjNfMQ==
Further study
