1 cr-wp-1507-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P.NO. 1507 OF 2010 M/s. Family Credit Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Ajay Rai i/b Akhilesh Singh Adv. for petitioner Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2 The petitioner is a finance company. A loan was taken from this company to purchase the vehicle bearing registration no. MH-02/BG-205. However, thereafter there was default on the part of the person taking loan. Hence, arbitration proceedings were resorted to and the finance company got an award in their favour. In the meanwhile, the vehicle was used for trafficking narcotic substance and hence, it came 2 cr-wp-1507-10 to be seized by Anti Narcotic Cell, ATS Mumbai in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to "N.D.P.S.Act"). The case is numbered as N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 50 of 2009. Thereafter the competent authority authorized under Section 68-D of the Act passed interim order on 13.8.2009 in respect of the vehicle. By the said order, he directed that the subject vehicle shall remain frozen and shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with in any manner till further directions or order passed by the competent authority. 3 Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2009 the petitioner approached the Sessions Court claiming custody of the vehicle by invoking provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 9.4.2010 rejected the said application observing that the petitioner had remedy of filing an appeal against the said order. 4 Admittedly, the order has been passed by the Competent Authority authorized under Section 68-D of the Act and order has been passed under Section 69-F of the Act, in such case, the said order is appeallable as provided under Section 68-O of the Act. Hence, no error can be found with the learned Sessions Judge whereby he rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. 5 In view of the fact that petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal under Section 68-O of the Act, it is appropriate that the petitioner prefers 3 cr-wp-1507-10 an appeal before the appellate authority as per provisions under Section 68-O. However, 68-O provides that the appeal has to be preferred before the appellate Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which the order is served. That period of 45 days has long expired. I am of the opinion that an opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, on the appeal being filed within three weeks from today, the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the said appeal on merits. 6 Petition is disposed of accordingly. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]