The Karnataka High Court, in a landmark decision, has set aside an order from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, clarifying the powers of courts under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The ruling, delivered by Justice K. Natarajan on August 5, 2024, underscores the jurisdiction of special courts to grant interim custody of vehicles seized in NDPS cases, even when recent Central Government notifications are ambiguous.
Background of the Case
The case, Kawal Jeet Kaur v. State of Karnataka (CRL.P No. 200895 of 2024), revolves around a goods container vehicle registered under the name of the petitioner, Kawal Jeet Kaur, a 69-year-old businesswoman from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The vehicle, bearing registration number RJ-14/GG-4191, was intercepted by the Excise Department at the Shiradon check post in Karnataka during a routine check. Upon inspection, the authorities discovered ten plastic bags containing opium and ganja hidden under the driver’s seat.
The vehicle, engaged by Royal India Roadways for the transportation of garments, was en route from Ludhiana, Punjab, to Tripura and Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The driver was arrested, and an FIR was lodged under various sections of the NDPS Act. Following this, the petitioner sought the release of her vehicle, claiming ignorance of the illegal activities conducted by the driver.
Legal Issues Involved
The petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court, which had rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The primary legal question was whether the special court under the NDPS Act had the authority to release a vehicle seized in connection with a drug-related offence.
The case also delved into the implications of two conflicting Central Government notificationsโone from January 16, 2015, which did not address the release of vehicles for interim custody, and another from December 23, 2022, which repealed the former without offering new guidelines on the matter.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice K. Natarajan, after hearing arguments from both sides, held that the Sessions Court had erred in its interpretation of the law. Citing a previous Division Bench ruling in Crl.RP No. 623/2020, the High Court reiterated that courts do have the power to release vehicles on interim custody, despite the new Central Government notification.
The judgment highlighted that the NDPS Act does not preclude special courts from granting interim custody of vehicles. Quoting from the Division Bench’s earlier ruling, Justice Natarajan stated:
“The Magistrate or the Special Court is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for interim custody of the conveyance/vehicle under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases arising out of the provisions of NDPS Act.”
The court criticized the Sessions Judge’s reliance on the 2022 notification, stating it was a “misconception of the law.” The High Court clarified that until new rules are framed, the 2015 guidelines, as interpreted by the Division Bench, remain applicable.
Order and Conditions
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the earlier order and directing the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to several stringent conditions:
1. Indemnity Bond: The petitioner must execute an indemnity bond for โน15 lakh with two sureties.
2. Photographic Documentation: The Investigating Officer must photograph the vehicle and its contents from all angles.
3. Responsibility of the Petitioner: The petitioner is responsible for delivering the goods to their respective owners.
4. Vehicle Production: The vehicle must be produced whenever required by the court or during confiscation proceedings.
5. No Alterations: The petitioner is prohibited from altering the vehicleโs identity, nature, or color until the case’s disposal.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Kawal Jeet Kaur, represented by Advocate Rajesh Doddamani.
– Respondent: State of Karnataka, represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Jamadar Shahabuddin.
