The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Rer;pondent Nos.1 to 4: None appeared Counsel for the Rer;pondent No.5: SRI M.RAMACHANDRA tiEDDy, ADDTTTONAL pUBL|C pF (: SEcL,TOR (TG) The Court made the, following: ORDER i I I I I t:x? HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAD1 SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.627 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order, daled 17 07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2025 in P.O.R.No.081 of 2018 by the learned Principat Sessions Judge at lrlancherial (for short'the Sessions Court') and consequently, to direct immediate release of the Tractor Eicher bearing No.TS-'19- TA-3408 (hereinafter referred to as the 'crime vehicle') to the petitioner subject to reasonable conditions, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the Appeal fited by the petitioner under Section 44(2-E) of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act, 1967'), was dismissed.

2. Heard [/lr. CH.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. [Vl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the crime vehicle, is accused of attempting to encroach 3.SZ Ha of the forest land, leading to the registration of a case in P.O.R.No.081 of Z01g and detention of the crime vehicle. Despite the petitioner,s objections, respondent No.3 confiscated the crime vehicle on

03.04.2024, and respondent No.2 has passed an order, dated 2

29.04.2024, confirming the orders passed by re spondent No.3 Thereafter, the petitioner approached Sessions O:,urt by filing an Appeal, hovvever, the same was returned as not m l rtainable as the crime vehicle was involved in the offences under tl-r, Act, 1967. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.4636 of 2025 before t',is Court, which was disposr:d of on 18.02.2025, directing the pet tioner to file an appropriate application before the competent Dis trict Court under Section 44(2-E) of the Act, '1967. Accordingly, ttr , petitioner filed Crl.A.No.29 of 2025 before the Sessions Co. rt, which was dismissed. llence, the present Criminal Revision Car.;e is filed

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 1f ;at the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle and the same is r(r:essary to meet her day-to-day needs. The Sessions Cour erred in not independenlly assessing the legality and p ropriettT of the confiscation order, as mandated under Section 44 2-E) of the Act and mecharrically affirmed the orders of the sub-:rdinate authority without reccrding clear findings on each grourr:' raised in the Appeal. The, confiscation itself is improper. The Srr;sions Court has not assigneJ any valid reasons of what prejudice \,'ould oe caused to the prosecution, if interim custody of the crime ulrhicle is handed over to the petitioner. ln support of his contention re relied on the a.rlatts@:a:1.,l f .--rx?8ta .. .:l' . .. ,,{ 3 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assaml and prayed to allow the revision.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for the same

6. ln Bishwajit Dey (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para Nos.26, 27,35 to 40 held as under-

26. This Courl is fuiher of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transpofting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

27. ln the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of the NDPS AcL the esurt ca+ invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Couft has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts ancl circumstances of each case. 35. This Coutt clarifies that the aforesaid d/scussio, should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it witl be open to the trial Coutls to take a different view, if the facts of the case so warrant. Supreme Court in similar facts rn Sarnaba v. State of Kerala2, has released the vehicle. 36. ln the present case, fhls Court finds that after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. ln the said charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-pafty occupant has been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has allowed his vehicle to transpoft contraband drugdsubstances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. ' zozs scc 1:; :+ I '1z.oz,t) t: scC 382:2022 SCC Online SC 1784 4 Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be rcl,' .';e(l o ) su perd aii 37. ln fact. the Supreme Couft in similar facts ir ,ahtab:t v. State of Kerala (ciled supra) has held as under (S) ) pal.rs 6"s) "5. The appellant has urged inter alia lhaf as per So.t .'t 36-r) read wilh Section 51 of the NDPS Acl, Crimtnal t't )ce(tur: Code w<>ulC be applicable for proceedings by a Sp tl Coui under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt ptt ) ,siot1 l) impose ,iny specific condition on the appellant wh e t leasnJ the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly lhe register'. r otvrrcr of the ve hicle btl had not pafticipated in the offence . : )lleqel by the pntsecution nor had knowledge of th,- le.qe1 transactrcn

7. The leanted counse/ seeks to rely on the judgn{'t of thts Courl in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. Slafe of Gular,r ';ptnn1 that it ts no use to keep such seized vehicle at police .:t,ttion f(.'r a long petiod and it is open to the Magistralc i.) ,r)ass appropritte orders immediately by takng a bon I an.' ) guarante'e as wel/ as security for return of the satd , llicle if required at any point of tme. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for paiies ar, in th? conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the cas(, )nC lhe legal prc'vtsons referred aforesaid, we are of the vic',' itat tltis is an aporopriate case for release of the vehicle on t ) ,ns i?/)J conditions b be determined by the Special Colfil. 9. bear the.r oytn costs." The appeal is accordingly allowed leavng t rtie:: lt lf the rchicle in the present case ls kepf in the c t. ioclt' c'f police tilt the trial is over, it will serve no purpose.

38. Ih is Courl is also of the view that if the vclti', in tlt: presenf sase is allowed to be kept in the custody of t) lice ltll the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. fh,s CL i i tilkes judicial trctice that vehicles in police custody are stotr ! ir-t th= open. C)nsequently, if the vehicle is not released ( t tng th,2 trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of tltt. ,,eathei. its value will only reduce.

39. On the contrary, if the vehicle in queslion ls /.r/rriise(./. rl would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able 1t),)ant hB livelihood), to the banufinancier (who would be repat(! ttte loa;) disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an ttditional vehicle v,rould be available for transpoftation of goods) Conclusion 40. Consetquently, the present criminal appeal is atlol cd wit,\ direction to the trial CoutT to release the vehicle in qLr .:;tiotr i,t the inte'im on superdari after preparing a video rd sttll ..!{itarard/ ---r'J 5 photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documenls necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Fufther, the appellant shall not sell or paft with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an unclertaking to the trial Courl that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Courl.

7. ln the light of the aforesaid judgment and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Case is allowecl. The order, dated 17.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2025 in P.O.R.No.08'1 of 2018 y I t I by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at lt/lancherial is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to release the crime vehicle i.e., Tractor Eicher bearing No.TS-19-TA-3408 in favour of the petitioner, on proper verification of her identity and ownership, subject to the petitioner complying with the following conditions within fifteen ('15) days from the date of this order (i) The petitioner/owner of the crime vehicle shall furnish a personal bond for Rs.20,0001 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall submit all information/ documents necessary for identification of the veh icle. 6 (iii) fhe petitioner shall not sell or part ,,;ith the orvnership of the vehicle till conclusion of .he arrd shall furnish an undertaking lo the cc,ncerned Officer that she shall I.oduce/ su rrender the vehicle within one week : being sc drrected and/or pay the value of the verl.icle. l\4iscellaneous applications, if any penrl ng, shall also stand clc,sed /I SD/. K.S ]EE RA.MA MURTHY DE l)UTY REGISTRAR l---- -l //TRUE COPY// Secrroru oFFlcER To,

1. The Principal Sessrons Judge at ly'lancherial' 2. The Junior Civil J udge-cu m-J ud icial Magistrate of First () ass Court Bellampalli.

3. The Station F ouse officer. Neelwai Forest Police statror [v]ancherial District 4, Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the -s z .e of Te|angana at Hyderabad [C)UT]

5. One CC to Sri CH Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSL s) HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 ORDER CRLRC.No.t27 ot 2025 ',.,' a. ti'"t :'. .., l 7[25 - ij )'-' l, .:.,:' ii 1 ,'::,,. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION I)ASE c\