Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drugs could be released on interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the confiscation scheme under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Analysis: The seized conveyance was alleged to have been used in carrying heroin, and the Act contains a specific confiscation framework for conveyances used in the commission of offences. The Court held that the NDPS Act is a special enactment meant to curb drug trafficking and that its confiscation provisions, particularly the mechanism under Section 63, indicate that interim custody cannot be granted in a manner that would defeat the object of the Act. It was further noted that the plea that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner and was used without her knowledge or connivance raised questions of fact for inquiry and did not justify return of the vehicle at the interim stage. Since the vehicle had been secured in a garage, the apprehension of deterioration did not assist the request for release.
Conclusion: The vehicle was not liable to be released on interim custody under Section 451 of the Code, and refusal of return by the Trial Court was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a conveyance is seized as having been used for transporting narcotic drugs and is liable to confiscation under the NDPS Act, the general power of interim custody under the Code cannot be exercised so as to frustrate the statutory confiscation scheme.