9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Petition against order u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for interim custody of seized vehicle dismissed by trial court. Details of the judgment: 1. Issue 1: Ownership of the seized vehicle - The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of the vehicle seized while transporting poppy straw. - Police found discrepancies in vehicle registration during seizure. - Petitioner shifted stance from not being the owner initially to claiming ownership later. - Court held that petitioner cannot seek interim custody based on registration certificate if he denied ownership during investigation. - Vehicle liable for confiscation under NDPS Act due to transportation of commercial quantity of poppy straw. 2. Issue 2: Confiscation of vehicle under NDPS Act - Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of NDPS Act states conditions for confiscation of conveyance used in drug transportation. - Petitioner's claim of not being the owner at the time of seizure supported by agreement for sale. - Court emphasized that owner must prove lack of knowledge or connivance in drug transportation to avoid confiscation. - Previous court rulings highlight the importance of preventing drug-related offenses through strict measures like confiscation. 3. Decision: - Court dismissed the petition for interim custody of the vehicle based on the petitioner's shifting ownership stance and the vehicle's involvement in drug transportation. - Rulings cited by petitioner's counsel deemed irrelevant given the specific circumstances of the case. - Petitioner not entitled to custody as the actual owner, Dinesh Kumar, did not seek custody and the vehicle is subject to confiscation under NDPS Act.
|
