Smt. Neelima Pathak vs Spl. and Sessions Judge and Another

B.K. Rathi, J.—This is a revision u/s 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure., against the order dated 22.10.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 115 of 1998. I have heard Sri. D.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

The facts of the case are that the applicant applied for the return of the vehicle No. U.P. 65 1/2050, which was seized in Crime No. 914 of 1998, u/s 20/29 of N.D.P.S. Act in district Jaunpur.

According to the prosecution case the vehicle was found carrying 20 Kgs. contraband ganja. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle was challenged u/s 20/29, N.D.P.S. Act.

It is no doubt that the applicant is registered owner of the vehicle. Her contention is that her driver took the vehicle for two days and in the meantime was seized. That a telegram in this regard was also sent on 12.9.1998. However, this telegram appeared to have been given in defence after the seizure of the vehicle as the vehicle was seized on 9.9.1998. The applicant is resident of Varanasi and the vehicle was seized in district Jaunpur. It cannot be accepted that the vehicle was taken by the driver. It appeared that applicant is indulged in the transportation of illicit articles by the disputed vehicle. Therefore, there is no question for the release of the vehicle.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has referred the law laid down in the case of A.B. Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 XXXV ACC 425. This authority is entirely on the different point and is of no help. The other authority referred to as Sri Nand v. State of U.P. XXXIV 1997 ACC 320. In this case the truck was seized under the U.P. Excise Act and was released by the High Court on proper security. This authority is also not applicable to the facts. Last authority is Mohd. Hasim v. State of U.P. 1996 UPCR 648. It was held that the truck was seized by the police under the N.D.P.S. Act, can be released on interim basis.

None of the authority are of any help to the applicant. The power of the release of the vehicle vested in the Court and can always be exercised by the Magistrate. No case is made out for exercise of the power. In this case 20 Kgs. contraband ganja was recovered in the vehicle in another district where it is not registered.

I do not find any illegality. The revision is dismissed.