<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (3) TMI 1663 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466117</link>
    <description>Orissa HC held that a seized vehicle used for transporting contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be released in interim custody under Section 457 CrPC, because the special statute did not exclude the CrPC provisions where no inconsistency existed. Liability to confiscation under Section 60(3) arises after the trial outcome and does not, by itself, bar interim release. The Court also applied the established safeguards for release of seized vehicles, including panchnama, photographs, valuation, a security bond, and conditions preventing alienation or misuse. The refusal to release the vehicle was therefore set aside in favour of the owner subject to protective conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2026 21:24:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=881254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1663 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466117</link>
      <description>Orissa HC held that a seized vehicle used for transporting contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be released in interim custody under Section 457 CrPC, because the special statute did not exclude the CrPC provisions where no inconsistency existed. Liability to confiscation under Section 60(3) arises after the trial outcome and does not, by itself, bar interim release. The Court also applied the established safeguards for release of seized vehicles, including panchnama, photographs, valuation, a security bond, and conditions preventing alienation or misuse. The refusal to release the vehicle was therefore set aside in favour of the owner subject to protective conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>