Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for grant of interim custody of his vehicle = whether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act is liable for confiscation or not only at the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused. But there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be ordered. Further, if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.

 Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for grant of interim custody of his vehicle =  whether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act is liable for confiscation or not only at the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused. But there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be ordered. Further, if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.

AP HIGH COURT 

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.150 of 2021

BATHINA ANAND MOHAN RAO
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ORDER:

 Challenging the order dated 04.01.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.176 of

2020 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional

District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under

NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in connection with Crime No.487 of

2020 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, dismissing

the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 457 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for grant of

interim custody of his vehicle i.e. Maruthi Celerio ZXI Car bearing

Registration No.AP 39 AE 3378, this criminal revision case under

Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.

2. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

on behalf of the 1st respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

Court below dismissed the application filed under Section 457 of

Cr.P.C on the ground that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated to

the State, if ultimately the case results in conviction. It has further

observed that the vehicle was used for transportation of Ganja and

as the investigation is still pending, the petitioner is not entitled for

interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the case.

Learned counsel submits that the Court below has failed to

exercise its jurisdiction under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and moreover,

there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and that the

petitioner is not involved in the crime. Learned counsel submits 

2

that just because the investigation is pending, that cannot be a

ground to refuse the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if a

vehicle is seized under NDPS Act for being used in transporting

narcotic goods, the owner is entitled for interim custody of the

vehicle and this Court has granted interim custody of the vehicles

in similar cases. Hence, this petition may be allowed.

5. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C which reads

thus:

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

 (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer

is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code,

and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court

during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order

as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the

delivery of such property to the person entitled to the

possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained,

respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate

may order the property to be delivered to him on such

conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such

person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in

such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which

such property consists, and requiring any person who may

have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his

claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

6. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and

when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the

Magistrate may order property be delivered to him on such

conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit.

7. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership

of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle. It is clear that 

3

there is no bar under the NDPS Act on the Courts to order for

interim custody of a vehicle which is seized in a crime registered

under the provisions of NDPS Act. Section 63 of the NDPS Act

reads thus:

“(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused

is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide

whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to

confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and,

if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order

confiscation accordingly.

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to

be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or

section 62, but the person who committed the offence in

connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the

court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order

confiscation accordingly: Provided that no order of confiscation

of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one

month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person

who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any,

which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further

that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug,

psychotropic substance, 1[controlled substance,] the opium

poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and

natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would

be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be

sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as

may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.

8. From the above, it is clear that the Court shall decide

whether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under

the provisions of the NDPS Act is liable for confiscation or not only

at the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused.

But there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be

ordered. Further, if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless

and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.

9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of settled law, this 

4

Court feels it appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle to

the petitioner by imposing certain conditions.

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the

order dated 04.01.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.176 of 2020 on the file of

Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions

Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act,

Visakhapatnam is set aside. The vehicle i.e. Maruthi Celerio ZXI

Car bearing Registration No.AP 39 AE 3378 is ordered to be given

interim custody to the petitioner on condition of his executing a

self bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only)

with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions

Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act,

Visakhapatnam.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are

closed.

___________________________

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

26th February, 2021

PVD 

5

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Allowed

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.150 of 2021

26th February, 2021

PVD