IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1727 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRMP.685/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ SURABHI & CO. INVESTMENTS, D.NO.3/6, MAIN ROAD, PUDUPPAI, DHARAPURAM TALUK ERODE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.RABEEK ALI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KHAN AHAMMED, 75 KODUMUDI MAIN ROAD, SIVAGIRI, ERODE DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DRI, KOCHI, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM) 2. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, DRI, KOCHI. 3. REMESHKUMAR D., S/O.DURAISAMI, 115-116, PALAGODWIN 551,TIRUPUR. BY ADV.SRI.VENUGOPAL M.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1727 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition was being adjourned repeatedly, at the instance of the counsel for the revision petitioner. Today also there was no representation at the time when the case is taken up. 2. This revision petition is preferred challenging the order dated 23.4.2010 in Crl.M.P.685/10 in Crime No.3/09 of DRI, Kochi, by which the request of the revision petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle involved in the above crime is declined. According to the revision petitioner, it is a partnership firm carrying on the business of money lending and they have got licence for money lending and the revision petitioner is the financier of the vehicle, Innova car bearing Regn.No.TN-56/4477, which involved in the case. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he had availed the hypothecation loan from the revision petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.2009, as per the loan agreement dated 12.10.2009. According to the revision petitioner the said vehicle involved in Crime No.3/09 on the file of the DRI, Kochi, wherein the offence alleged is punishable u/s.20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. According to the revision petitioner, they have advanced a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 3rd Crl. R.P.No.1727 of 2010 2 respondent as hypothecation loan and the vehicle is hypothecated to the revision petitioner. Thus according to the revision petitioner he is entitled to get the interim custody of the vehicle and hence he approached the Sessions court, Ernakulam, by filing Crl.M.P.No.685/10, u/s.457 of Cr.P.C, but the court below dismissed the petition illegally. 3. Stoutly opposing the prayer, the DRI, Kochi filed objection statement, wherein it is stated that O.R.3/09 is registered against three persons for the offences punishable u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), S.28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegation is that about 30kg. of charas was recovered from the car, which was driven by A2 himself from Thirupur to Kochi. According to DRI, Kochi, the said car is liable to confiscation u/s.60(3) of the NDPS Act, since the car was used for transporting the seized narcotic drugs with the full knowledge and consent of the owner. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the seriousness of the allegation and the offences involved and the decisions of the apex court in the decision reported in 2000 Crl.Law Journal 567 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in (Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Punjab and others), has held that Crl. R.P.No.1727 of 2010 3 release of the vehicle u/s.457 of Cr.P.C. will surely adversely affect the proceedings u/s.60(3) of the NDPS Act. 5. Several grounds are raised in this revision petition in support of the plea for release of the vehicle and for challenging the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. The allegation in Crime No.3/09 of DRI, Kochi, is very serious and according to DRI, Kochi, 30 kg. of charas was detected, which was being transported from Thirupur to Kochi by using the vehicle in question. Even according to DRI, the vehicle is used for the purpose of transporting this much quantity of charas, with the consent and knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. The decision relied on by the counsel for the revision petitioner in support of his please for the release of the vehicle, is not applicable, correctly distinguished and observed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the above decision, the Honourable apex court has held that, the owner must be held to be the registered owner and accordingly the order of confiscation was upheld. Financier or the owner of the vehicle can take appropriate contention at the time of the statutory proceedings against the confiscation. The factual assertion of the investigating agency, in pursuance to the seizure, that the vehicle in question is used with the active consent Crl. R.P.No.1727 of 2010 4 and knowledge of the revision petitioner, cannot be ignored for the sole reason that a huge quantity of charas was transported from Tirupur to Kochi. There is no material or evidence to take a different stand at this stage. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, the releasing of the vehicle u/s.457 of Cr.P.C. will certainly adversely affect the proceedings contemplated u/s.60 of NDPS Act. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the modus operandi adopted in committing the offences and the involvement of huge quantity of contraband article, I am of the view that the challenge against the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is only to be rejected. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/