Jala Venkata Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Dr V R K Krupa Sagar, J

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. (Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS) is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 06.07.2023 of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.1548 of 2023 in Crime No.98 of 2023 of Rangampeta Police Station.

Heard arguments of Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.AP 39 TM 9507. The petitioner purchased it on 29.09.2020. All this is the common version of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1-State. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are accused in Crime No.98 of 2023. In the Court below they reported no objection for the claim made by the present revision petitioner for his interim custody of the vehicle.

On 15.05.2023, the police arrested three accused and seized the earlier referred car and recovered a total quantity of 24.9 kgs. of Ganja. The arrested accused were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner is not one of those accused.

Since the petitioner's car was seized in connection with the crime, he moved a petition before the Court below seeking interim custody of the car stating that the petitioner is in need of his vehicle. By an order dated 06.07.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that under Sections 60(3) and 63 of NDPS Act vehicle used in such offence is liable for confiscation irrespective of the result of the case and that the investigation was still under progress. In such circumstances, the prayer was refused.

That forced the petitioner to come up with this revision challenging the impugned order. It is a matter of common knowledge that the vehicle was seized long back on 15.05.2023. Thus, for more than one year it is stationary and is idle. Automobile in such condition would surely get deteriorated. In the celebrated judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat 2002 (10) SCC 283 exhorted all the Courts in this country and held that there is no use in keeping seized vehicles at the police stations for longer periods and the Courts were directed to take up issues as expeditiously as possible and pass necessary custody orders.

One may also notice that in Sainaba V. State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 1784, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to deal with the prayer for interim custody of a Maruti Suzuki car involved in NDPS offence. Their Lordships pointed out that Section 36c read with Section 51 of NDPS Act discloses that applications for interim custody and petitions filed under Cr.P.C. have to be addressed and necessary orders are to be passed. The principle that has to be seen from that ruling is that where claim for interim custody is made by registered owner of the vehicle and if the record does not indicate that such claimant had any role in the crime that was committed and if it is also seen that such claimant had no knowledge of the alleged usage of the vehicle in such crime, the Courts have to grant interim custody of the vehicle.

State has not shown any issue contrary to the above rulings of their Lordships. For the specific query raised by this Court the response from the State was that the present petitioner is not one of the accused in this crime which has been investigated for more than one year. It is distressing to note that according to the State, this petitioner is also not examined as one of the witnesses by the investigation agency. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in all earnest stated to the Court that necessary instructions would be given to the investigation agency in this regard.

The discussion made above amply indicates that this petitioner is not one of the accused in the crime that was committed. The investigative details do not indicate any knowledge to this petitioner that his vehicle was utilized in commission of such crime. In such circumstances, allowing vehicle to remain idle leads to its destruction serving purpose to none. In the above referred circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram is irregular when it did not make appropriate endeavour in reaching to its decision. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be maintained. In fact, in page No.3 of the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that in terms of Sections 60 to 63 of NDPS Act the investigation officer did not take any steps. The aspects concerning confiscation can be considered by the Court below when appropriate proceedings are taken before it and the present order of this Court is no hindrance for the Court below to take appropriate decision in such proceedings.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, order dated 06.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1548 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram is set aside. Crl.M.P.No.1548 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram is allowed. The Maruthi Suzuki Dzire Car bearing Registration No.AP 39 TM 9507 shall be released to this petitioner on his furnishing a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety. The petitioner shall surrender the original registration certificate with the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram and obtain a certificate from the Court about such deposit of registration certificate. The said certificate given by the Court would serve for all practical purposes as registration certificate for the petitioner. The petitioner shall undertake not to encumber this property and that he would produce it before the appropriate Court as and when directed. The Court below is directed to take photographs of the vehicle and obtain signatures of this petitioner on those photographs.