9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the order rejecting the return of Maruti Car No.DL-SC 0657. 2. Legality and propriety of the order rejecting the return of currency amounting to Rs. 2,44,900/-. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Propriety of the Order Rejecting the Return of Maruti Car No.DL-SC 0657: The petitioner challenged the order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) regarding the return of the Maruti car seized by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The car was used by Amar Pal Singh to transport 940 gms. of Heroin, which led to its seizure. The Trial Court rejected the return of the car under Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act), stating that the car was used for conveying contraband and thus liable for confiscation. The petitioner argued that she was the registered owner of the car and its use for transporting contraband was without her knowledge or consent. She contended that the car, if kept in the open, would become junk, causing loss to her. She cited precedents to support her claim for interim custody under Section 451 of the Code. However, the court found that the car was securely kept in a garage and not exposed to weather damage. The court emphasized the strict provisions of the Act, designed to combat drug trafficking and abuse, which override the general provisions of the Code. It noted that under Section 60(3) of the Act, the car is liable for confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for interim custody, as it would defeat the purpose of the Act. The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court's discretion in disallowing the return of the car was upheld. 2. Legality and Propriety of the Order Rejecting the Return of Currency Amounting to Rs. 2,44,900/-: The petition also challenged the rejection of the return of Rs. 2,44,900/-, which was seized from Amar Pal Singh's house. The Trial Court had rejected the return of the currency based on Amar Pal Singh's statement under Section 67 of the Act, where he admitted that the amount was the sale proceeds of contraband. The petitioner did not claim the money before the lower court and thus was not considered an aggrieved person. The court found no illegality in the Trial Court's decision to reject the return of the currency based on the statement made by Amar Pal Singh. Consequently, the petition to this extent was disallowed. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Trial Court's orders on both counts. The Maruti car was found to be liable for confiscation under the Act, and the petitioner's claim for interim custody was rejected. Similarly, the return of the seized currency was denied based on the evidence that it constituted the proceeds of drug trafficking. The judgment emphasized the stringent provisions of the Act and the necessity to uphold them to combat drug abuse and trafficking effectively.
|
