THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 of 2011 BETWEEEN: Burra Jangaiah … Appellant AND The State of A.P. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the accused against judgment dated 12.11.2010, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, which is a Special Court constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, NDPS Act) for that district, insofar as it relates to confiscation of MO.1 Auto to the State. By the same judgment, the lower Court held that the accused was not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act 1968, Section 8(c)/22 of the NDPS Act and consequently acquitted the accused. While acquitting the accused, the lower Court ordered confiscation of the Auto in which the accused was alleged to be carrying toddy adulterated with Diazepam. 2. Though the lower Court did not specify the power exercised by it in confiscating MO.1 Auto, it is evident that it was done in exercise of power under Section 60(1) of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows: “60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyance to confiscation:- [(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, cocoa plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation.]” 3. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that before passing an order exercising the power under Section 60(1) of the said Act, the lower Court should have followed the procedure prescribed by Section 60(3) of the Act. Section 60(3) of the Act reads as follows: “(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, [or controlled substance] or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.” 4. Before ordering confiscation of the vehicle, the lower Court should have given due notice to the owner under Sub- Section (3) of Section 60, so that the owner will have opportunity to prove that the vehicle was so used without the knowledge or connivance of himself. Further, the lower Court should have kept in mind the procedure prescribed by Section 63 of the said Act in ordering confiscation. In this case, the accused/appellant is the owner himself. Inspite of it, he was busy in defending himself on the charges levelled against him during trial in the lower Court. He had no opportunity to know intention of the Court to confiscate his vehicle. When intention of the Court is expressed by giving a show-cause notice to the owner/accused herein, then he will have an opportunity to produce relevant evidence towards proof under Sub-Section (3) of Section 60. 5. The lower Court observed that the accused did not claim property and did not lead evidence to show that he is owner of the Auto. The lower Court overlooked the fact that the accused as owner of the vehicle, filed Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2008 in the lower Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. claiming the Auto and the lower Court by order dated 21.02.2008, passed a considered order allowing the said petition and giving the said Auto to the appellant for interim custody on certain conditions. It was observed in that order that the appellant/accused produced necessary papers proving ownership of the Auto. Therefore, observations made by the lower Court in the impugned judgment about ownership of the Auto, are unwarranted. I am of the opinion that the lower Court did not apply its mind having regard to Sections 60 and 63 of the Act and passed the confiscation order mechanically. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside that portion of the order relating to confiscation of MO.1 Auto to the State and directing the lower Court to make fresh enquiry with regard to confiscation of MO.1 Auto, after giving notice to the accused and pass suitable orders thereafter. Meanwhile, the petitioner is entitled to have interim custody of the said Auto in terms of order dated 21.02.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2008 of the lower Court. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:13.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 of 2011 DATED:13.07.2011 ysk