Kanchan Transport v. 'l . THE STATE OF TELANGANA

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorgndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B MURALIDHAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER ,+: ,/r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAITAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9237 OF 2tt25 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5,28 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking order for the release of the goods i.e , i) 60 Drums each corrtaining 25 liters of white colour liquid and Diversy Shureclean written or -he drums, ii) 40 cardboard boxes marked as Crew Urinal Screen Dewy Fresh, iii) 291 cardboard boxes contained Divorsey (soft care DAS : spray-Hs) Hand Sanitizers, each containing two cans of 5 liters and iv) 1g Diversey Sink San Easy Pack Sink Sanitizer Boxes, total worth Rs 6,33,6291 to the petitioner, who is the custodian of the goods, whictr were seized by Respondent No. 2, by setting aside the order daled 17 002025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 299 of 2025 in Cr No.129 of 2O2S (l'e,kulapaily potice Station), on the file of the learned Special Sessions Jr.rclge for the Trial of Cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subr;tilnces Act-Cum- I Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem.

2. Heard Mr.B.l\/uralidhar, learned counsel for il-e petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional p_rltlic prosecutor, representing respondent No. 1 -State 2 N? R./ 3 Ol.P.Na 92)7 of 202 t 3 Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner, who operates a cargo/courier/transport service, filed a petition under Section 503 of BNSS read wilh Section 52-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'NDPS Act'), with a prayer to release the property i.e., i) 60 Drums each containing 25 liters of white colour liquid and Diversy Shureclean written on the drums, ii) 40 cardboard boxes marked as Crew Urinal Screen Dewy Fresh, iii) 291 cardboard boxes contained Divorsey (soft care DAS E spray-H5) Hand Sanitizers, each containing two cans of 5 liters and iv) 19 Diversey Sink San Easy Pack Sink Sanitizer Boxes, lotal worth Rs-6,33,629/-. The Court below observed that the petitioner is not the owner of the property and as a transporter he cannot claim any right to the goods merely by transporting them. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-05.2025' the complainant, on route watch, surprised the petitioner's vehicle' where in, 134 packets of Dry Ganja, totaling 697.350 Kgs, was seized from the cabin next to the driver. Thus, the crime has been registered under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(bxii)(C), 27 -A,29 of NDPS Act

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is merely the transporter, and the goods were booked by a customer by name Diversey lndia Hygiene Private Limited, Hyderabad, for delivery to Diversey lndia Hygiene Private Limited, Haryana. During transit, \trq i -.;:f'-l,F 3 xtttT (.r/.1'.Na D )7 al 20)i accused/A1 to AB allegedly transported the contraband without his knowledge. Further, the petitioner is not an accused arrcl no way involved in the offences. Furthermore, as the goods were entrusted to him for transportation, it would be the responsibility of the petit oner to deliver the same to the consignee/customer. However, as tl'e materials were seized, he was unable to fulfill the business obligation Fle further pointed out that the property sought to be released is in no wa,/ connected to the offences nor forms part of the evidence, and that it:; release would safeguard his business interests by enabling complian()e with contractual obligations. lt has been further pleaded that the petitroner is ready to oblige any condition for the release of vehicle and fuflher observation of the Court below that mere ownership would entitle a party to claim custody of the seized materials is untenable. Thus, prilyed for quashing the impugned order and for release of the goods sought

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would subnrit that the seized materials and part were being carried in the vehicle, wh ch was seized by the Police/complainant during inspection. The Court be ow observed that the petitioner is not the owner, who is entitled to rece ve the materials. However, he fairly submits that the materials sought tc te released are not being relied upon by the prosecution as evidenr:er. However, for securing the evidence, an appropriate order may be pasr;ed. 7. I have perused the materials on record. 4 NIRJ Crl.l'.N0.92)7 of 2025 B. The learned counsel for the petitioner is pleading that petitioner is the kansporter of the goods whose release is being petitioned- The prosecution does not dispute this fact. A photocopy of the invoice dated 15.05.2025, enclosed to the petition is reflecting this fact Thus, the fact that the petitioner was entrusted with the goods for transportation from Hyderabad to Haryana can be concluded. This fact is also making note that during transit, possession was given to the petitioner to deliver the same to the assigned consignee. That being the position, the legally recognized interest can be read in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the observations of the Court below that only the owner can claim the custody of goods, which were seized during the investigation, is unfounded, for the reason that the settled proposition of law that to secure the interest there is no impediment to the Court to grant custody to any third party- However, under justifiable order recorded with the reasons. ln this view, the petition of the petitioner is found perfectly maintainable.

9. lt is also settled position as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, the interim custody of the goods shall be normally were given unless there is an exceptional reasons. ln the present case, the goods are stated to be hygiene products/sanitizers and keeping the material idle for a long time will chemically deteriorate and affect its efficiency. ln that view and the settled legal position, this Court is inclined / ,.=4 - 5 NltiJ (-t,.1' \.0 t1 )7 of202j to allow the prayer and order the release of the proper.y as sought by the petitioner

10. However, considering the fact that the goods trrere intended for delivery in Haryana, and acknowledging that their prorlr-ction may not be possible, if at all required during investigation, directing the trial Court to properly record/recapture the evidentiary value of the rniaterial. which has been given to the petitioner, are found proper

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed lrith the following conditions (i) Petitioner is directed to execute a pers rnal bond for the value of goods i.e., Rs.6,33,6291 (ii) Further, the trial Court must verify wheth()r the Magistrate's proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, inclrde full particulars of the cartons and whether their evidentiary value was properly recorded or otherwise, direct the Magistrate to specifically record the particulars of the materials, which are being released, with photograph,; in the presence of all concerned and keep them in the record for use in the trial proceedings Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall r;tand closed /ffRUE COPY// /.1T. SRINIVASA REDDY Sstsrarur REGtsTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 2 THE.Special S_essions Judge for the Trial of Cases und€ r Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge at Kothagudem. The Station House Officer, Tekulapally Police Station, B radradri Kothagudem. .*,-..i#{ ','"--t y -=.r:.*ffi '' /

3. One CC to SRI B MURALIDHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies I I GR,Zgh I I HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 t ORDER CRLP.No.9237 ot 2025 I t \ .,r- si,1I c,/. itrT ?tI25 C f l ): i"i \,r \ ,.1 \.j+ \

1. \ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION rc|rclw