The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri B MURALIDHAR, Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER :/ :'1 : i l I i i I I I i l i i j I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI cRl MTNAL PETITION No.8 427 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'the BharatiYa Nagarik BNSS'), seeking a direction for the release of the goods' i'e ' stx large cartons, each containing 36 batteries' totaling 21 6 batteries, valued at Rs.15'94,183.681. The petitioner, being the transporter of the said goods, requests their release by setting aside the order dated 17 06'2025 passed in Cd'M.P'No' 306 of 2025 in Crime No. 129 of 2025'registered at Tekulapally Police Stationon the file of the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge' Kothagudem'

2. I have heard Mr'B'lrluralidhar' learned counsel for the petitioner and trilr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No 1-State' Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that' the petitioner' who 3 operates a cargo and courier service, filed a petition under Section503oftheBNSSreadwithSection52.AollheNarcoticn 2 Drugs and Psychotropic subsfances Act, 1985 (,the NDps Act,), seeking release of seized prope(y comprising six large carton boxes. Each box contained 36 batteries, totaling 216 batteries, collectively valued at Rs.15,94,1g3.681. The Court below, with an observation that the petitioner is not the owner of the seized goods and, being a mere transporter, cannot assert any proprietary or possessory rights over the consignment solely by virtue of having transported it, dismissed the petition.

4. The prosecution's case is that, on 24.05.2024, the complainant intercepted the petitioner,s vehicle. Upon inspection, 134 packets of dry Ganja, collectively weighing approximately 697.350 kilograms, were discovered conceared in the cabin adjacent to the driver,s seat. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections B(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 2t_A, and 29 of the NDpS Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely a transporter by profession and that the goods in question were booked by a customer for delivery to M/s. Sudheer Power Limited, EPlp Kartholi, Bari-Brahmana Unit-lll, I I ,*-i -a*' J Jammu and Kashmir' lt is contended that during the coursd of transit'accusedpersonsAltoABallegedlytransported contrabandsubstanceswithoutthepetitioner,sknowledgeor involvement. lt is further submitted that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the present case and has no connection, direct or indirect' with the alleged commission of was limited to transporting the offences. The Petitioner's role consignment entrusted to him' and he was under a contractual obligation to ensure its delivery to the consignee' However' due to the seizure of the goods by the authorities' the petitioner was rendered incapable of fulfilling his commercial and contractual responsibilities.Hefurtherarguesthatthepropertysoughttobe released, i.e., the batteries, does not constitute contraband' nor does it form part of the material evidence relevant to the alleged offence. As such, continued detention of the said property is unwarranted and prejudicial to the petitioner's business interests' The release of the goods, it is urged, would enable the petitioner to comply with his contractual duties and safeguard his commercial goodwill. ln addition pleaded that the petitioner is willing to comPlY 6. with any condition that may be imposed by this Court for the , 4 release of the vehicle and the goods. lt is also contended that the observation of the Court below that mere ownership is a prerequisite to claim custody of the seized property is legally untenable, particularly in cases involving transporters who are bailees and not claimants of title. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for the quashing of the impugned order passed by the Court below and for the release of the seized goods.

7. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the seized materials along with the contraband were being transported in the vehicle that was intercepted and subsequenfly seized by the police/complainant during inspection. The Court below noted that the petitioner is not the owner of the said goods and, therefore, is not entifled to claim their release. However, the learned Additional Public prosecutor fairly concedes that the materials sought to be released are not being relied upon by the prosecution as evidence in the present case. Notwithstanding this concession, it is submitted that, in the interest of securing the integrity of the investigation and any potential evidentiary -_ .-_requirements, prayed for passing an appropriate order. F 5 I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by B. the learned counsels and have perused the materials on record'

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the transporter of the goods for which release is sought. This factual assertion is not disputed by the prosecution' A photocopy of the invoice dated 17'05 2025' annexed to the petition, supports the petitioner's claim' evidencing that the goods were consigned lor transportation from Secunderabad to Jammu andKashmir.ltistherebyestablishedthatthepetitionerwas entrustedwiththepossessionofthegoodsduringtransitfor delivery to the designated consignee'

10. ln view of this, a legally recognized interest arises in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the observation made by the Court below that only the owner of the goods can seek their custody is founduntenableandcontrarytosettledlegalprinciples.ltisa well-established position in law that the court may' under appropriate and reasoned orders, grant custody of seized property even to a third party, provided such interest is justifiable' ln light of this legal framework, the petition is found to,-b"R maintainable. I 6

11. lt is also a setfled principle, as affirmed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that interim custody of seized goods should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. ln the present case, the property in question consists of batteries, which have a defined sherf rife and are prone to degradation if left unused. Continued seizure of such material would adversely affect its utility and commercial value- Therefore, considering both the nature of the goods and the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to allow the petition and direct release of the property.

12. However, in view of the fact that the goods were intended for delivery in Jammu and Kashmir and acknowledging the possibility that reproduction of the goods for evidentiary purposes may be infeasible, if required during the trial, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the evidentiary value of the materials released be properly documented and preserved.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is altowed, in the following terms: i :l t .t I I I i l i I f i I i I I I I I F :ir-- i I I I l, I I 7 (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for the total value of the goods, i.e.' Rs.15,94,183.68/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs NinetY-Four Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Three and Sixty-Eight Paise only) (ii) The trial Court shall ascertain whether the proceedings conducted under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act before the learned Magistrate include a detailed inventory and proper documentation of the seized materials for which release is sought' ln the event such documentation is found to be incomplete or deficient' the tvlagistrate shall be directed to record a comprehensive description of the materials, including the number' nature, and identifying features of each item' Additionally, the lVagistrate shall ensure that clear and dated photographs of the goods are taken in the presence of all concerned parties' including the investigating officer and the petitioner or their representative. Such documentation and photographic evidence shall be duly certified and preserved in the judicial record to safeguard evidentiary integrity and facilitate its use, if necessary, during the trial' B o (iii) The release of the goods referred to in the petition shall be subject to the outcome of the final adjudication of the criminal case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, SECT N OFFICER Houle officer, rer<ulaparri coricJsiJiion,shaoradri Kothagudem Iffi.:"|:,,"" '1 The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at yellandu. , 9 9n" CC to SRt B MURALTDHAR, Advocate IOPUCI * 5. Two CD Colies ' Iyr."r""H:",thepubtic proiec,jior, Hifie;r';i;t"hl state or retansana at SM HIGH COURT DATED: 0910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8427 of 2025 THE SIr,; C :J C) {J t 1 B JUL ?025 .P g) * : 'C.iD^ . r' -l-__. * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION