Case Title: Sanju v. State of Punjab
The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that, "There is no provision in the (NDPS) Act concerned, which bars the owner concerned to recourse the mandate of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., appertaining to the release on superdari of the impounded or seized vehicle, during the pendency of the trial, in respect of NDPS offence(s)."
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.404 of 25.08.2021, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad, wherein an offence constituted under Section 18 of NDPS Act, was committed. The allegation against him is that at the given time, he was riding a motorcycle when he got apprehended at the crime site by the Police and 250 gms of opium was recovered when his personal search was conducted by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the crime motorcycle was also impounded.
The trial court had released, on superdari, to the petitioner therein, the appositely seized vehicle.
The High Court in this regard observed that “ the invalidity of the impugned order, as, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, is no longer res integra, as this Court through a decision made, on 12.05.2022, respectively upon CRR-333-2020, and, upon CRR-844- 2022, has held, in the relevant paragraphs 3 to 10 thereof, paragraphs whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, that the above drawn reason is completely legally infirm, and, thereafter had proceeded to release, on superdari, to the petitioner therein, the appositely seized vehicle.”
It was also observed that “Even otherwise, the release, on superdari of the impounded or seized vehicle, even if it becomes impounded in respect of the NDPS Act, yet is construable to be an entrustment of the released crime vehicle, to the offender concerned, and, during the pendency of the trial against the petitioner, the effects of entrustment thereof, to the petitioner remains alive, and, with a resultant effect that, the petitioner becomes enjoined to, as, and, when asked to produce it, for the relevant purpose, before the learned trial Judge concerned, his ensuring its production.The longevity of the entrustment of the motorcycle to the petitioner, is dependent upon a conclusive verdict of acquittal, being made, as then the Court concerned, may without any fetter of any entrustment encumbering the released vehicle, order for its release to the person, as it no longer remains case property, but except when it is required in some other case…. ”