The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated tn the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order Dt 28-11-2024 passed in Crl IVIP No. 989 of 2024 by the I Additional Distnct and Sessrons Judge Kothagudem granting interim custody of Maruthi Eartiga Smart Hybrid ZXL-BS-VI Car bearing No.TS 15 f 1322 in favour of respondent l.A. No. 1 ot 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspension the Order Dt 28-1 1-2024 passed in Crl.tvlP. No 989 of 2024 by the I Additional District and Sessrons Judge, Kothagudem granting interim custody of Maruthi Eartiga Smart Hybrid ZXL BS-VI Car bearing No.TS 15 T 1322 in favour of respondent l.A. No. 2 of 2025 Betvveen: Banoth f\ilamatha, W/o Santhosh Rathod, Age 26 years, Occ. Owner of lhe vehicle bearing No.TS 15T1322, R/o. H.No.2-103, Chilepalle, Jharasangam lt/andal, Sangareddy District. Petitioner/Respondent ,!.r*q4!t. " .;}! AND The State of Telangana Through the Station House rl f r;er, proh Statron Kothagudern. Bhadradri Kothagudem Dis r ct. Rep Prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana and Excise bv Publ c ... i -'spo ndenUPetrtioner P-'trtion Lrnder Section 528 of BNSS RAv 503 of u\l s, praying that r. Ur.:: crrcumstances stated tn the fulemorandum of Grounds of Crr r ital petition the High court nray be pleased to vacate the interim suspension orde r lA No 01 of 2025 rn crl P No 1500 of 2025 dated 04t02r2025 on the fire of 1 r s Hon'bre court by d rsmissrng the Crinrrnal Petition. This Petition comtng on for hearing, upon perustn! tre IVlemrlrandum Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearrng tre argllrlrents srr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional public proser: r rr on berrarf of Respondent No.'l and of Sri S.Sudershan, Advocate for the R: ;rondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1500 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the State seeking to quash the order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Crl.lt/.P. No.9B9 of 2024 passed by the l-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, granting interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the owner of the vehicle

2. Heard Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State and Sri S. Sudershan, learned counsel for the respondent

3. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that it is only the Drug Disposal Committee, who has to release the property seized during the course of investigation under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act') and that the Special Court dealing with the NDPS cases does not have any power to release the same. He further submitted that the Drug Disposal Committee under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act is empowered to dispose of the property being confiscated to the State. 2 ETD,J Crl.P- No.1500 o12025

4. The learned counsel for the respondent hir ; submitted that it is against the statutory provisions that the t)rug Disposal Committee has to dispose of the case property. He i rther submitted that the learned Judge of the Special Court has riry rlly granted the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner her:rn, who is the owner of the vehicle. He, therefore, prayed to dis r ir;s the petition confirming the orders of the Special Court.

5. Perused the record

6. The vehicle i.e. Maruti Ertiga car bea - rg registration No.TG 15T 1322 was seized during the ccurse of i rvestigation by the police in a case in COR No.332 ot 2024 and on a >etition filed by the. owner of the vehicre vide crr.M.p. No.gB9 of 2(t: tr, the rearned l-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kothagude,- , has passed orders dated 28.11.2024 rereasing the interim custcc y of the car in favour of the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the ,aid order. the present petition is filed by the state. The contentiorr :f the State is that the Sessions Court does not have any power o release the vehicle, appears to be against the statutory position rjection 60 of the NDPS Act is pertinent to be referred in this regir c. Hence, the same is extracted hereunder for th e sake of reference 'I ! ) I i t, II It I I E i l I ! I ! i 'I i : J ETD,J Crl-P. No.15OO ol 2025 "60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation: (1) Whenever any offence punrshable under this Act has been commifted, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into lndia, transported, manufactured possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and the receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation. (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotroprc substance or controlled substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use." 1 I 4 ETD,J Cll.P. No.1500 o12025

7. Thus, a vehicle seized under NDpS Act shall be confiscated unless the owner proves that it is t;r_.d without his knowledge or connivance and in case if the o n rer proves his innocence, the vehicle shall not be confiscated. Fu r l-rer, the vehicle can be confiscated only after a full_fledged tri I . Section 52A envisages that after confiscation, the Drug Disposa )ommittee gets the authority to dispose of the property in accordanc: ,,vith law. B. ln Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of We: t Bengall, the Court has observed that: "However, the seized vehicle is not I confiscation if the owner of the seized ve^ prove that the vehicle was used by the ; person without the owner,s knowle r connivance and that he had taken all re I precautions against such use of the seize j by the accused person.,' able to (Je can tocused ge or ;,:na ble rrehicle ln Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam2, the I pex Courl has ' I observed that "The provisions of the NDpS Act do not bar the r;r rcerned Court from exercising its discretion, to release the r _.hicle in interim custody. While the Act provides for confi s :urtion in appropriate cases, it does not preclude the C) t from Criminal Appeal No.'1305 of2025 2025 |NSC 32 2 I ; 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.150O of 202s granting interim release of the vehicle where the circumstances so warrant. It has further observed that: "The peculiar factual matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach. lt would, therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall circumstances clearly rndicate his bonafides and absence of any involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle." '10. Applying the said case laws to the present, the vehicle is bound to be released. The present case is in the crime stage and the petition to release the property was filed before the Sessions Judge and the same was rightly allc.rwed by the Sessions Judge. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the present petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.9B9 of 2024 by the l-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS SISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, t.ThelAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge,Kothagudem(With records lf anY)

2.TheStationHouseOfflcer,ProhibitionandExciseStation,Kothagudem \ Hyderabad [OUT] 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat( t'Telangana at 4 One CC to Sri S Sudarshan, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies \ AtlK /psl q i't /'' /. HIGH COURT DATED: 2911012025 f t ! ORDER CRLP.No.1500 of2025 (THES \ (;" \if\\* \ ) 1 rrg ?vE '-c Sn^. r--- .-a,t1119 * -Jio. $.t -\ ' ./,' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION % 0 4x lo&