NDPS Act Does Not Bar Owner's Recourse To S.451 CrPC For Release Of Seized Vehicle On Superdari: P&H High Court

The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further added that in order to avoid the motorcycle from deteriorating in the police compound its release on superdari to the petitioner, is both just, and, expedient.

"There is no provision in the (NDPS) Act concerned, which bars the owner concerned to recourse the mandate of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., appertaining to the release on superdari of the impounded or seized vehicle, during the pendency of the trial, in respect of NDPS offence(s)."

In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner was that 250 grams of opium was recovered from his personal search.

Petitioner being the registered owner of the crime motorcycle which he was riding when such contraband was recovered, instituted an application under Section 451 of CrPC before the trial Judge for the release of crime motorcycle. However, such relief was declined which led to the institution of the instant petition before this Court.

Regarding the rejection of application regarding release of crime motorcycle, this court held that the order of the trial Judge is no longer res integra as this Court through a decision in CRR-333-2020, and CRR-844- 2022 had affirmed the release, on superdari, of the appositely seized vehicles.

The invalidity of the impugned order, as, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, is no longer res integra, as this Court through a decision made, on 12.05.2022, respectively upon CRR-333-2020, and, upon CRR-844- 2022, has held, in the relevant paragraphs 3 to 10 thereof, paragraphs whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, that the above drawn reason is completely legally infirm, and, thereafter had proceeded to release, on superdari, to the petitioner therein, the appositely seized vehicle.

Therefore, the court noted that since the above made order has not been stated by the learned State counsel, to have been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has a binding effect.

Therefore, since the above made order has not been stated, at the bar, by the learned State counsel, to become set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in sequel, it acquires the apt conclusive, and, binding effect.

Even otherwise, the court noted that the release, on superdari of the impounded or seized vehicle, in NDPS matter, is construed to be an entrustment of the offender, and, during the pendency of the trial against the petitioner, the effects of entrustment to the petitioner remains alive. Hence, the petitioner is enjoined to produce it before the trial Judge as, and, when asked to.

Even otherwise, the release, on superdari of the impounded or seized vehicle, even if it becomes impounded in respect of the NDPS Act, yet is construable to be an entrustment of the released crime vehicle, to the offender concerned, and, during the pendency of the trial against the petitioner, the effects of entrustment thereof, to the petitioner remains alive, and, with a resultant effect that, the petitioner becomes enjoined to, as, and, when asked to produce it, for the relevant purpose, before the learned trial Judge concerned, his ensuring its production.

The duration of the entrustment of the motorcycle to the petitioner, is dependent upon a conclusive verdict of acquittal. After which the Court orders for its release to its owner, as it no longer remains case property. Except when it is required in some other case the court added.

Consequently, the court quashed, and, set aside the impugned order rejecting release of the motorcycle and further ordered its release on superdari, to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Case Title : Sanju v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 236 

Click Here To Read/Download Order