1. Both the parties heard at length.

2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Neemuch District Neemuch in crime No. 22/2022 whereby an application under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-19-GD-0988 has been rejected.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 22.11.2022 CBN Neemuch got a discrete information from the informant about illegal transportation of contraband. Acting upon said information, CBN officers intercepted trailer bearing registration No. RJ-19-GD-0988 and during search 33.870 kg of opium on a secret chamber constructed on the trailer was recovered and accused Chandraram and Genaram were found sitting in the said vehicle. Accordingly offence has been registered.

4. Petitioner has preferred an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Neemuch for releasing the seized vehicle on interim custody. Trial court after hearing both the parties, rejected the application by observing that seized quantity of contraband is more than the commercial quantity if the vehicle is given on supurdagi, the secret chamber constructed in the trailer may be tampered by petitioner which is a subject matter of evidence and may be required during the trial. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the impugned order is an interim order, therefore, revision is not maintainable as per the the provisions of Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No.2078/2020 (Dheerendra Dwivedi @ Dheeru Vs. State of M.P.) by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur, but from perusal of the record it appears that in the instant case the trial Court has rejected the application on the basis that petitioner has failed to prove that he is registered owner of the vehicle. The issue of title is involved in the instant case, therefore, it cannot be considered as an interim order and Criminal Revision lies against the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the law and facts on record. If the seized vehicle is not given on supurdagi to the petitioner it will lose its worthiness and will be of no use in near future. Hence the impugned order be set aside and seized vehicle may be released on supuurdagi to petitioner on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – CBN has vehemently opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle on Supurdgi and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Court below by stating that prior to 1.5.2014 the conveyance was not included for pre-trial disposal but after the amendment in Section 52-A of NDPS Act, the conveyance may also be disposed off at pre-trial stage. The proceeding under section 52-A of NDPS Act has already been initiated therefore, provision of sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the instant case and petitioner is registered owner of alleged vehicle hence had knowledge about the said contraband.The impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper and therefore, no interference is required.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From perusal of the registration certificate, tax invoice and purchase bill of the seized vehicle, chassis number mentioned in the registration certificate is tallying with the purchase bill. Same registration number is mentioned in the insurance policy. It is the prosecution case that present petitioner is owner of the said vehicle and due to his ownership, he has been implicated in this matter. Therefore, registration certificate appears to be bonafide and on the basis of registration certificate, it appears that present petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle.

10. Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 provides as under :

"[52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.--2[(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.]

(2) Where any 3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section

(1) shall prepare an inventory of such [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances] or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in subsection

(1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of--

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 4[such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of 5[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]"

11. In the case of Munni Singh (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that in the case of Narcotic Drugs, the trial Court is empowered to release the vehicle on Supurdgi in pending trial. It is also held by this Court in the case of Pandurang Kadam Vs. State of MP reported in 2005 (2) ANJ MP 351 that notwithstanding the fact that vehicle is liable to be confiscated u/S. 60 of NDPS Act, it may be released on interim custody in appropriate cases. Thus, interim custody should not be declined to the owner of the vehicle simply because it is liable to be confiscated u/S. 60 of NDPS Act.

12. The Kerala High court in the recent judgment dated 13.2.2023 passed in WP (Cr.) No. 1189 of 2022 in the matter of Shanil Vs. State of Kerala also held that:- "By mere reason of such consumption being from inside a vehicle, the vehicle cannot be termed as a 'conveyance' used in transportation of the contraband."

13. It is also undisputed that condition of the vehicle is deteriorating dayby-day as the same is lying open to sky and under the heat of Sun and rains the vehicle is losing its value day-by-day due to lack of maintenance. Considering the fact that ownership of the vehicle is not disputed by the respondent, although petitioner is an accused in the present case, but he is not having any criminal past, and final conclusion of the trial will take a long sufficient time, therefore, it would be appropriate to release the seized vehicle on Supurdginama.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 21.3.2023 is hereby set aside and it is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-19-GD-0988 be released on following terms and conditions to the petitioner:

"(i) That petitioner shall furnish Supurdginama in the sum of Rs.10 lacs (Rs. Ten Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for releasing the seized vehicle vide Crime No.22/2022 registered by CBN Neemuch in respect of offence punishable under Sections 8/18, 25 of the NDPS Act

(ii) That the petitioner shall produce necessary documents like original registration certificate, sale-letter etc. before the trial Court.

(iii) That, the petitioner shall get the vehicle photographs showing the registration number as well as chassis number of the said vehicle. Such photographs shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(iv) That, the photographs of the petitioner as well as surety must have been placed in the personal bond and bond of surety. Further, the photograph of person identifying him/her before the Court must also have been placed in the personal bond. The petitioner surety and person identifying shall carry their full residential proof.

(v) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and shall not lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.

(vi) The petitioner will not allow the vehicle to be used in any anti-social activities.

(vii) In the event of confiscation order of the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation

(viii) It is further directed that before releasing the vehicle in interim custody to petitioner, the S.H.O. of concerning police station shall get photographs size 18 x 12 inches of the concerned vehicle taken from all sides and also the photographs showing engine and chassis numbers. Such photographs shall also be placed before the trial Court to be kept along with the record."

15. With the aforesaid directions, this revision stands disposed of.