Interim custody of crime vehicle = 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, 3 to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s ownership over the vehicle. It is clear that 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 for the offences under the said 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. 9. 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 4 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 destroyed.

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, 3 to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. 

There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s ownership over the vehicle. It is clear that 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 for the offences under the said 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. 9. 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 4 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 destroyed. 

AP. HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.504 of 2020

Kolluri Sunitha

-vs-

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ORDER:-

 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’)

seeking to set aside the order dated 14.09.2020 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2020 in crime No.34 of 2020 passed by the learned

Special Court for Trial of Offences under the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –Cum-I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole and consequently

release the vehicle i.e. Hyundai Red I20 car bearing registration

No.AP 27 BT 7013.

2. Heard Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle

was seized by the Police in connection with crime No.34m of 2020

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D,

506, 509, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’ and

Section 20(B) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). Subsequent to the

seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner approached the Court below by

filing a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of

the subject vehicle. But the said petition was dismissed on the

ground that the petitioner is not third party and she is mother of

respondent No.2/accused in the crime. In the order impugned it was

also observed that without disclosing the said fact the petitioner has 

2

filed the petition as third party and the Court has also observed that

if once the vehicle is released on interim custody, the same will go

into the hands of the accused being her son against whom there is

accusation under NDPS Act. There is strong apprehension from the

Police that he would do similar offences by using the said vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the

cause title itself it was shown that the petitioner and respondent

No.2/accused are wife and son of Ramanaiah @ Venkata Ramanaiah.

There is no intention on the part of the petitioner to suppress the

said fact. He also submits that if the vehicle is kept idle it will render

useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.

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

vehicle is seized under NDPS Act for use of the vehicle 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.

6. 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, 

3

to appear before him and establish his claim within six months

from the date of such proclamation.

7. 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 delivery of the property to him on such conditions as the

Magistrate thinks fit.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s ownership

over the vehicle. It is clear that 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 for the offences under the said 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.

9. 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 

4

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 destroyed.

10. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and in view of the settled law this Court

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

petitioner by imposing certain conditions.

11. Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the order

dated 14.09.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2020 by the learned

Special Court Designated for Trial of Offences Under the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –Cum- I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, is set aside.

The vehicle i.e. Hyundai Red I20 car bearing registration No.AP27 BT

7013 is ordered to be given interim custody to the petitioner on

condition of her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

one lakh only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the

Special Court Designated for Trial of Offence Under the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are

closed.

____________________________________

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Date : 05.01.2021

IKN

 

5

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Allowed

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.504 of 2020

05.01.2021

IKN 

6