IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1063 of 2008 ------------------------- CRMP.60/2008 IN CRIME NO. 2/2008 of SPL.COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHAJI SCARIA, S/O. SCARIA, PATTARUKUDIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CR.NO.2/2008 OF KOZHIKODE EXCISE RANGE). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORMR. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 1063 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th March 2008 ORDER Petitioner , who claims to be the registered owner of Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. KL 06/D 1728 involved in Crime No.2/2008 of Excise Range, Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ' the Act') sought interim custody of vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Crl.M.P.No.60/2008. The said petition was dismissed as per Annexure-2 order dated 2-2-2008 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara holding inter alia that the release of the vehicle will adversely affect the investigation since the registration particulars of the vehicle have not yet been obtained. 2. As a matter of fact, the petitioner claims to have produced Annexure-I registration particulars of the vehicle as obtained from the R.T.O. Idukki. The petitioner is not an accused CRMC 1063/2008 -2- in the above crime. If ultimately, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act, the petitioner can avert confiscation under Section 60(3) of the Act if he is able to show that the vehicle was used without his consent, knowledge or connivance. But that is a long way to go. Until then, the vehicle need not get deteriorated due to exposure to sun and rain. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. Sate of Gujarat, AIR 2002 S.C.638, I see no reason why the vehicle in question will not be given on interim custody to the petitioner. Accordingly, Crl.M.P.No.60/2008 filed by the petitioner before the court below shall stand allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) before the court below. 2. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below which shall not, however, insist on production of solvency certificate by the sureties. CRMC 1063/2008 -3- 3. petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle in whole or in part to any person. 4. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before court as and when required to do so. 5. Petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purposes. 6. The interim release shall be subject to any orders for confiscation that may be passed in the case. The Crl.M.C.is disposed of accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ks.