# Rajdhari Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3607 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajdhari-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49008
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Ashish Pandey,G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 451 & 457- Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-
Section 36-C -Section 51- Application of
the revisionist for release of vehicle
rejected- A perusal of Section 36- C and
51 of the NDPS Act indicates that the
provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not
in contradictions with the special Act
NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS
Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure
for interim custody of the vehicle is
prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
specifically deal with the custody and
disposal of property pending trial and the
procedure to be followed by the police
upon seizure of property. Consequently
the judgment Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
(supra) shall be applicable to the facts of
the present case and as in the judgment
Union of India Vs Mohanlal and another
(supra), only the disposal of seized
narcotic drug, psychotropic and controlled
substances
and
conveyances
were
discussed and there was no occasion to
consider the matter of release or the
interim
custody
of
the
vehicle
(conveyance)- Law laid down by the Apex
Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra)
will apply to the vehicle seized under the
NDPS Act as well. Thus, the Magistrate/
Special Judge, NDPS Act shall have power
to consider the application for the interim
custody of the conveyance/ vehicle under
the provision of Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C. The finding of the trial court that
the
Drug
Disposal
Committee
would
dispose of the vehicles seized under NDPS
Act is against the mandate of the Apex
Court in Union of India Vs Mohanlal and
another (supra).

As the NDPS Act does not provide for the
procedure to be followed for the interim custody
and disposal of the seized property, hence the
provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C
shall be applicable- law laid down in Union of
India Vs Mohanlal and another held not to be
applicable in facts of the case while law laid
down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai held to be
applicable.

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

9 All. Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
285
against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2
under Section 302 IPC read with Section
34 IPC and the High Court, in our view,
erred in quashing the charges framed
against the accused. The impugned order
cannot therefore be sustained and is liable
to be set aside"

17. Sri Yogendra Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied upon
the judgment of Manohari Vs. The
District Superintendent of Police (supra),
the said judgment is not applicable in the
present case. In the said case, the
information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was
given and the Court has observed that on
conclusion of the investigation, the police
shall file a final report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. only before the Jurisdictional
Magistrate and not before the Executive
Magistrate. This will apply in both cases,
where the final report is positive report or
is a closure report.

18. In the present case, there is only
one F.I.R. registered on 28.10.2021, as
Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Section
302 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Aligarh
Junction, District Aligarh. The earlier
information by Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh
Kumar to the Police dated 26.10.2021, was
an information regarding unknown dead
body lying near railway line which can be
termed as F.I.R. Preparation of inquest
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding death
of the deceased, postmortem examination
and detailed accident report was in fact in
the nature of inquiry and it cannot be
equated with the investigation contemplates
under
Section
157
Cr.P.C.
which
commenced after lodging of F.I.R. under
Section 154 Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is obvious that the F.I.R.
lodged on 28.10.2021 for offence which is
cognizable, therefore, investigation was
conducted under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The
first report dated 26.10.2021 was an
information tendered by Portal/Pointsman,
Mukesh Kumar, the railway authority
regarding an unknown dead body which
was lying near railway line and the same
cannot be termed as F.I.R. The preparation
of inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
regarding death of deceased, postmortem
examination and detailed accident report,
was in fact, in the nature of inquiry and it
cannot be equated with investigation
contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

20. The charges have been framed
after collecting material on record and
court below had no option but to frame the
charge.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the revision lacks merit and it is
dismissed.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 285
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Revision No. 3607 of 2021

Rajdhari Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lal Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Ashish Pandey,G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Sections 451 & 457- Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-
Section 36-C -Section 51- Application of
the revisionist for release of vehicle
rejected- A perusal of Section 36- C and
51 of the NDPS Act indicates that the
provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not
in contradictions with the special Act
NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS
Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure
for interim custody of the vehicle is
prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
specifically deal with the custody and
disposal of property pending trial and the
procedure to be followed by the police
upon seizure of property. Consequently
the judgment Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
(supra) shall be applicable to the facts of
the present case and as in the judgment
Union of India Vs Mohanlal and another
(supra), only the disposal of seized
narcotic drug, psychotropic and controlled
substances
and
conveyances
were
discussed and there was no occasion to
consider the matter of release or the
interim
custody
of
the
vehicle
(conveyance)- Law laid down by the Apex
Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra)
will apply to the vehicle seized under the
NDPS Act as well. Thus, the Magistrate/
Special Judge, NDPS Act shall have power
to consider the application for the interim
custody of the conveyance/ vehicle under
the provision of Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C. The finding of the trial court that
the
Drug
Disposal
Committee
would
dispose of the vehicles seized under NDPS
Act is against the mandate of the Apex
Court in Union of India Vs Mohanlal and
another (supra).

As the NDPS Act does not provide for the
procedure to be followed for the interim custody
and disposal of the seized property, hence the
provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C
shall be applicable- law laid down in Union of
India Vs Mohanlal and another held not to be
applicable in facts of the case while law laid
down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai held to be
applicable.

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Crl. Revision No.1926 of 2018, Dhirendra
Singh Thapa Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

2. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj.,
(2002)10 SCC 283 ( relied)

3. U.O.I Vs Mohanlal & anr. (2016) 3 SCC 379 (
distinguished on facts)

4. St. of M.P Vs Udai Singh Crl. Appeal No.524
of 2019

5. Bhupendra Pathak Vs St. of U.P. & anr. Crl.
Revision No. 4509 of 2018 ( Alld.)

6. Shajahan Vs Inspr. of Excise & ors, 2019 SCC
Online Kerala 3685 ( distinguished on facts)

7. Crl. Petition No.3571/2021 Rathnamma Vs
State reptd. by PSI Channagiri P.S Davanagere
Kar. High Court At Bengaluru on 17.05.2022.
(relied)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. The present criminal revision has
been preferred by the revisionist Rajdhari
Yadav against the order dated 29.10.2021
passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/
Additional Session Judge, Court No.6,
Allahabad in Misc. Case No.381 of 2021,
arising out of Case Crime No.19 of 2021,
under Sections 8/20/27A/ 29 N.D.P.S. Act,
Police Station Lucknow NCB, District
Prayagraj whereby the application of the
revisionist for release of Tata Mini Truck
No.GJ 16 AU 9781 was rejected.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that the Tata Mini Truck
No. GJ 16 AU 9781 of the revisionist was
9 All. Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
287
being repaired by the mechanic near
Naribari Police Chowki. The STF force
detained his driver, helper and vehicle from
there on 27.05.2021 at about 3:00 PM.
Nothing was recovered from the truck of
the revisionist. The recovery was made
from the Eicher Mini Truck but the police
let that vehicle go after getting huge
amount and illegally implicated his truck
by taking his truck to Police Station
Shankargarh, at a distance of 50 km from
the Naribari Police Chowki. From the spot
nothing is shown to be recovered from his
truck. After planting the alleged ganja the
arresting
officer
badly
damaged
the
mangoes loaded upon his vehicle and
looted the cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the
driver and challaned the driver and helper
in the present case. He is not named in the
complaint. He has neither committed any
offence nor has any concern with the
aforesaid case. He is wrongly and illegally
being implicated in the present case on the
basis of the fake recovery. The Special
Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session
Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad has not
exercised the jurisdiction vested in him
according to the provisions of law. The
impugned order is totally against the
provisions of law, hence, the revision be
allowed and the impugned order rejecting
the release application of his vehicle No.
GJ 16 AU 9781 be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has drawn the attention of the Court
towards the judgment passed in Criminal
Revision No.1926 of 2018, Dhirendra
Singh Thapa Vs. State of U.P. and
another and has argued that in that case the
Court allowed the revision, impugned order
was set aside, and release application was
allowed, hence, on the basis of the said
judgment the impugned order is prayed to
be set aside.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the opposite party no.2- NCB wherein it is
narrated that the specific information with
regard to the transportation of huge
quantity of 'ganja', by the nominated
accused persons, by the vehicle of the
revisionist was received in their office at
Lucknow. A team constituted to conduct
search and seizure. The team so constituted
intercepted the vehicle in question and
nominated accused persons and recovered
975:00 kg ganja from the vehicle of
revisionist. During search and seizure the
officers of NCB complied with all the
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Memo
of recovery was prepared on spot and was
signed by accused persons, who were
present at the time of recovery. On the
national highway due to heavy traffic and
security reasons it was not possible to
unload mango cartons and bags of ganja.
So the intercepted vehicles and the persons
were
taken
to
the
Police
Station
Shankargarh for the proceedings of search
and seizure and there is no illegality in the
same. After recovery of 975:00 kg. ganja
from the vehicle of the revisionist, Ganja
and vehicle were seized under the N.D.P.S.
Act and were deposited in malkhana of
concerned police station by the order of
concerned court.

5. The statement of accused persons
were recorded. Several notices were sent to
the revisionist as he was found the owner
of the vehicle in question, but despite the
service of notices, the revisionist did not
appear before the investigating officer and,
accordingly, the investigation with regard
to the revisionist is kept open and is still
pending. The court below has rightly
rejected the vehicle release application of
the revisionist as the vehicle was being
used for the transportation of narcotic
substance and was seized under Section 60
of N.D.P.S. Act. The impugned rejection
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order is a detailed and reasoned order,
which was passed after considering the
relevant provisions of N.D.P.S. Act and the
material available on record.

6.

The
judgment
Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat,
(2002)10 SCC 283 does not apply on the
facts of the present case as the N.D.P.S.
Act is a self contained Act and Section
8(C) of the Act prohibits the transportation
of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances except for medical or scientific
purposes, with the terms and condition of
license permit or authorization. As the
truck in question has been seized under
Section 60 of NDPS Act which was being
used
by
the
accused
persons
for
transportation of recovered ganja, without
any authorization and the driver of the
revisionist was present at the time of
seizure, who had admitted his involvement
in the trafficking of ganja. As per Section
63 of NDPS Act the seized ganja and the
conveyance are liable to be confiscated.
N.D.P.S. Act being a special Act has over
riding effect on the provisions of Cr.P.C.
Section 451 of Cr.P.C. does not apply in
the case of N.D.P.S. Act. Such a huge
quantity of recovered ganja cannot be
planted. There is nothing on record to
establish any type of enmity between the
accused persons and the officers of NCB.

7. On the basis of judgments Union
of India Vs. Mohanlal and another (2016)
3 SCC 379, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Udai Singh Criminal Appeal No.524 of
2019, Bhupendra Pathak Vs. State of U.P.
and another passed by this Court in
Criminal Revision No. 4509 of 2018, and
Shajahan Vs. Inspector of Excise and
others, 2019 SCC Online Kerala 3685, the
prayer is made to dismiss the present
revision.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the
record.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2- N.C.B. is not present.

10. There is no dispute that the
revisionist is the owner of the vehicle in
question having all the documents with
regard to his vehicle. The only question
involved is whether the trial court had
jurisdiction to release the truck in question?

11. As per the facts of the case, the
NCB team had intercepted the truck and the
alleged recovery of 975 kg. ganja is shown
from the vehicle of the revisionist. It is true
that in recovery memo at some places the
word Eicher Mini Truck has been used in
place of Tata Mini Truck, but the
revisionist cannot take benefit of this
bonafide mistake of the scribe of the
recovery memo, as in the recovery memo
the number of the vehicle has been clearly
mentioned as GJ 16 AU 9781 with the
name of owner Rajdhari Yadav and as per
revisionist Rajdhari Yadav, he is the owner
of the Tata Mini truck No. GJ 16 AU 9781.
From the information received from the
R.T.O. office also, intercepted Tata Mini
Truck No. GJ 16 AU 9781 has been found
registered in the name of the revisionist,
Rajdhari Yadav.

12. Admittedly, the vehicle in
question is seized the provisions of the
NDPS Act. To ascertain the role of the
vehicle owner various notices are alleged to
have been sent by the NCB, but as per the
version of NCB the revisionist refrained
himself from attending the office of NCB.
Though, the revisionist denies the fact that
he had received any notice from NCB, but
it is an admitted fact that the revisionist did
9 All. Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
289
not attend the office of NCB and due to non
appearance
of
the
revisionist
the
confiscation proceedings regarding the
aforesaid Tata Mini Truck could not be
started and the investigation is still in
progress.

13. It is claimed by the revisionist that
his vehicle be released as per provisions of
Cr.P.C. (Sections 451 and 457) in light of
judgment
Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai
(supra). The revisionist has also claimed
benefit of judgment Dhirendra Singh
Thapa (supra) passed by this Court.

14. If we go through the general
provisions in this regard, in the Cr.P.C. the
seized vehicle can be released as per Sections
451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. but here in the case in
hand the vehicle has been seized under the
provisions of NDPS Act and NDPS Act
admittedly is a special act which prescribes a
procedure for dealing in specified case and
NDPS Act being a special statute, the
provisions of special statue has to be
followed by the Court. Section 63 of the
NDPS Act provides a procedure for making
confiscation. Admittedly the vehicle in
question has not been confiscated yet. Section
52-A of NDPS Act provides for the seizure
and disposal of seized narcotic drug
psychotropic
substances
and
the
conveyances. Before the amendment of
Section 52-A of the Act in 1989 the word
'Conveyance' was not included as item which
could be disposed of under Section 52-A of
NDPS Act. As per the learned A.G.A. the
very fact that word 'Conveyance' had been
incorporated, the amendment itself indicates
that the Government intended to provide a
special procedure to deal with the disposal of
such conveyances. While taking into account
the fact that most of the transportation are
done in conveyance which itself is defined
under Section 2 (viii) as meaning "a
conveyance of any description whatsoever
and includes any aircraft, vehicle or vessel".
Therefore, if any, vehicle is involved in
transportation of narcotic drug, psychotropic
substance or controlled substance, such
vehicle also could be seized and disposed of
in terms of Section 52 A(1) of the Act.

15. It is held by Kerala High Court in
Shajahan Vs. Inspector of Excise and others
(supra) that because the special statute has
been amended giving the power of disposal
of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyance to
special officer, he will have power to act in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act or the rules framed thereunder.

16. In judgment Union of India Vs.
Mohanlal and another (supra), the Apex
Court hold that when any narcotic drug,
psychotropic and controlled substances and
conveyances are seized, the same shall be
forwarded to the officer in-charge nearest to
the police station, who shall approach the
magistrate concerned and with his permission
the sampling shall be done under the
supervision of the magistrate. Further, it is
directed by the Apex Court that Central
Government and its agencies and so also the
State Governments shall within six months
from today take appropriate steps to set up
storage facilities for the exclusive storage of
seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and
controlled Substances and Conveyances. The
Central
Government
and
the
State
Governments shall also designate an officer
each for their respective storage facility and
provide for other steps, measures.

17. The question to be decided in this
revision is that in view of the amended
provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act
and the notification dated 16.01.2015,
whether the learned magistrate/ special
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court has the authority under the provisions
of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or Drug
Disposal Committee is to release the
vehicle to consider the application for
interim custody of the vehicle/conveyance.

18. The same questions were decided
by the Division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court At Bengaluru on 17.05.2022
in
Criminal
Petition
No.3571/2021
Rathnamma Vs. State represented by PSI
Channagiri Police Station Davanagere,
State Public Prosecutor High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru and accompanied
petitions in a reference made to that Court.

19. As per Division Bench of
Karnataka, High Court at Bengaluru
provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. are not
inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS
Act, paragraph-47 of the judgment reads as
follows:-

"47. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are
of the considered opinion, that we have no
hesitation in holding that there is no
provision under the NDPS Act debarring
release of the vehicle for interim custody.
The provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C.,
as already stated supra, is found not
inconsistent with the provisions of the
NDPS Act and is applicable to the vehicle
seized under the NDPS Act as well.
Thereby, the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai's case stated supra will apply to the
vehicles seized under the NDPS Act as
well. Any contrary view taken by the Courts
of law would be against the interest of the
owner of the vehicles, the public at large
and the State."

20. In paragraph-50 of the same
judgment the Division Bench held that:-

"50. Since the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure including
Section 451/457 have been expressly made
applicable by virtue of Sections 36-C and
51 of the NDPS Act to the proceedings
before the Special Court and there is no
express bar contained in the NDPS Act for
grant of interim custody as contained in
Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927,
therefore, merely on the ground that the
vehicle is liable to confiscation under
Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be
held that once the vehicle is seized for
commission of offence under the NDPS Act,
interim custody cannot be granted, as
jurisdiction of criminal court has to be
construed
strictly
unless
expressly
excluded."

21. Regarding Standing Order No.1/
1989 and notification dated 16.01.2015, the
Apex Court in judgment Union of India
Vs. Mohanlal and another (supra) held
that the earlier Notification/ Standing Order
No.1 of 1989 shall be treated to be
superseded to the extent the subsequent
notification dated 16.01.2015 prescribes a
different procedure.

22. In order to avoid any
confusion arising out of the continued
presence of two notifications on the same
subject it was made clear by the Division
Bench of Karnataka High Court that
disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
and controlled substances and conveyances
shall be carried out in the manner
prescribed, till such time the Government
prescribed a different procedure for the
same.

23. Admittedly, in the present case
also, the respondents have not produced
any procedure prescribed by the Central
Government as directed by the Hon'ble
9 All. Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
291
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Mohanlal and another (supra).

24. Regarding applicability of the
provisions of Cr.P.C., in this regard the
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in
its judgment in paragraph-55 held that:-

"55. In view of the above, there is
no expression to release the interim
custody of the vehicle or exclude the
provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in view of the Section 36-C of
the NDPS Act. It is also relevant to
consider, at this stage, that either in the
Notification dated 16.01.2015 or the
amended provisions of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act, no mechanism is provided for
consideration of application for grant of
interim custody of the vehicle."

25. In paragraph- 56 of the judgment
the Division Bench held as follows:-

"56. The entire object of the
Notification is to either dispose or destroy
the drugs. Clause 9(1), (2), (4), (5)(a)(c)(d)
of the Notification concerns with Disposal,
while Clause 9(5)(b), (6), (7) concerns with
Destruction. The only clause which has
relevance to conveyances is Clause 9(5)(e)
which depicts that seized conveyances shall
be sold off by way of tender or auction as
determined
by
the
Drug
Disposal
Committee. The said Clause does not
concern to interim custody and it only
concerns with Disposal which is akin to
Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. Needless to
emphasize that this sale is post-trial.
Thereby the Notification, dated 16.01.2015
or the provisions of Section 52A of the
NDPS Act does not deal with the interim
custody
of
the
seized
Articles
or
Conveyances.
The
Legislature
has
intentionally not used the word "Custody"
under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as can
be seen under Sections 451 and 457 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore,
the power or jurisdiction cannot be
conferred to authority/officer including the
Drug Disposal Committee, who is not
vested with the same by the Statute. The
power under the Notification issued cannot
go beyond the statutory provisions of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act."

26. Lastly, the Division Bench of
Karnataka High Court held that the
judgments in Shahjahan Vs. Inspector of
Excise (supra) and Union of India Vs.
Mohanlal and another (supra), there was
no occasion to consider the application for
release of the interim custody of the vehicle
(conveyances) and in that view of the
matter, the said judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondents to
the effect that Drug Disposal Committee
has power and not the Magistrate or the
Special Court under the NDPS Act have no
application to the facts and circumstances
of the present petitions.

27. A perusal of Section 36- C and 51
of the NDPS Act indicates that the
provisions of Cr.PC. so far as, they are not
in contradictions with the special Act
NDPS Act, shall be applicable to the NDPS
Act and as in the NDPS Act no procedure
for interim custody of the vehicle is
prescribed Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
specifically deal with the custody and
disposal of property pending trial and the
procedure to be followed by the police
upon seizure of property. Consequently the
judgment
Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai
(supra) shall be applicable to the facts of
the present case and as in the judgment
Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another
(supra), only the disposal of seized narcotic
drug,
psychotropic
and
controlled
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
substances
and
conveyances
were
discussed and there was no occasion to
consider the matter of release or the interim
custody of the vehicle (conveyance).

28. So on the basis of above
discussions, this Court is of the opinion that
law laid down by the Apex Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) will
apply to the vehicle seized under the NDPS
Act as well. Thus, the Magistrate/ Special
Judge, NDPS Act shall have power to
consider the application for the interim
custody of the conveyance/ vehicle under
the provision of Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C.

29. The finding of the trial court that
the Drug Disposal Committee would
dispose of the vehicles seized under NDPS
Act is against the mandate of the Apex
Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal
and another (supra).

30. The revision is hereby allowed.
The order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the
Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional
Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad in
Misc. Case No.381 of 2021, arising out of
Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections
8/20/27A/ 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station
Lucknow NCB, District Prayagraj is hereby
set aside. The revisionist is directed to
appear before the court concerned within a
period of 15 days from today to get his
application decided on the basis of law
discussed above.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
Writ C No. 10792 of 2013

Kripa Shanker Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow
Development
Authority,
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kripa Shankar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Kumar Ayush,
Rahul Shukla

A.
Local
bodies
-
Ownership
-
Allotment of house - Hire purchase
agreement - Default in payment of
installment
-
Effect
-
Forceful
dispossession
by
the
Development
Authority
-
Validity
challenged
-
Liability of authority described - Held,
the financier, the L.D.A., is the real
owner of the house in a Hire purchase
agreement
-
There
can
be
no
impediment to the financier taking
possession of the vehicle when the
hirer
does
not
make
payment
of
installments/hire charges in terms of
the
Hire
purchase
agreement
-
However, any forceful dispossession is
illegal and any dispossession has to be
as per the due process of Law. (Para
15)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Alternative remedy - Rights
accrued
under
the
hire
purchase
agreement - Enforcement - Civil court
jurisdiction - Held, allotment and the
right flowing from the hire purchase
agreement has to be adjudicated and
proved
by
leading
evidence
in
a
competent court of civil jurisdiction -
When there is an alternative efficacious
remedy
available,
the
special
and
extraordinary remedy available under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot be exercised. (Para 19 and 20)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)