TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant interim custody of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, having regard to the scheme of confiscation and seizure under that Act and the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the order granting return of the vehicle was liable to be set aside for want of judicial exercise of discretion.
Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant interim custody of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, having regard to the scheme of confiscation and seizure under that Act and the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The special Act provides for seizure, safe custody, and eventual confiscation of conveyances used in narcotic offences, but it does not exclude the operation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where there is no inconsistency. The provisions relating to confiscation contemplate that the vehicle must remain available for the trial and for any eventual order of confiscation, yet they do not require that it must invariably remain in police custody until the trial ends. The Magistrate remains the appropriate authority to pass orders regarding custody and production of seized property until commitment to the Court of Sessions, and interim custody may be granted on terms that secure availability of the vehicle for confiscation if necessary.
Conclusion: The Magistrate had jurisdiction to consider and grant interim custody in a fit case, and the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not excluded.
Issue (ii): Whether the order granting return of the vehicle was liable to be set aside for want of judicial exercise of discretion.
Analysis: The impugned order did not disclose consideration of the rival contentions or the materials placed before the Magistrate. A discretion to grant or refuse interim custody must be exercised judicially on relevant materials, and an order passed in an arbitrary or summary manner cannot stand. As the record before the revisional Court was incomplete, the proper course was to set aside the order and permit a fresh application to be considered on merits by the competent court after hearing both sides.
Conclusion: The order granting return of the vehicle was unsustainable and was rightly set aside.
Final Conclusion: Interim custody of a seized vehicle under the special Act is not barred in principle, but any order granting such custody must be made on a proper judicial evaluation of the materials before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute does not expressly exclude the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and interim custody can be structured to preserve the property for eventual confiscation, the Magistrate may grant custody in a proper case; however, such discretion must be exercised judicially on relevant material.
TaxTMI 
