Page No.# 1/10 GAHC030003122025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./5/2025 Sh. Zoramchuana S/o Chalhnuna (L) R/o Darnam Veng Hnahlan, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b the Commissioner and Secretary Excise and Narcotics Department Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan L Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN 17.06.2025 Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This instant petition being Criminal Revision Petition No. 5 of 2025 is filed for setting aside the Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Judge, Special Page No.# 2/10 Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 31 of 2025 arising out of Excise & Narcotics Case No. N-209 of 2023 by which the learned Court mentioned above did not allow the interim custody of the vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Thar (Red colour) BR No. AS-12-AD-9507 to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not substantially place documents showing his ownership to the said vehicle. In the instant petition, the petitioner has further prayed for interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner concerned pending trial. 3. The factual matrix of the instant case is that on 27.07.2023, the personnel of Excise & Narcotics Department, Aizawl, Mizoram on a secret information from a reliable source about transportation of some quantities of contraband, proceeded towards Hnahlan and near a custom check gate, they saw the suspected Thar Jeep and in presence of witnesses, they conducted search in that Jeep and subsequently found a yellow nylon bag and inside the same, there were 55 numbers of soap boxes containing suspected drugs. The police personnel during the search took out the drugs, weighed it and found the same to be of 655 grams of suspected heroin. The police thereafter seized the Thar Jeep which was used for transporting the said heroin. Thereafter, the police personnel conducted the required exercises under the ND&PS Act, 1985. 4. In this petition, what this learned Court is concerned with is the seizure of the Jeep and the subsequent custody to be given to the owner concerned. The police personnel on completion of the investigation of the case submitted chargesheet on 30.12.2023. 5. The petitioner filed an application before the Special Court, ND&PS Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram for interim custody of the said vehicle i.e., Mahindra Thar which was seized in connection with the aforementioned case. Page No.# 3/10 However, the learned Court was pleased to refuse the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner as mentioned above. Assailing this order, the instant Review Petition is filed. 6. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions that the seized vehicles should not be kept in the Police Station for long as the same would get destroyed with time and the same may be given in custody to the rightful owner by the authorities concerned pending trial. He had also submitted that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle which is established by the sale letter as well as the affidavit that he has annexed with the instant petition. He submits that the petitioner has brought the vehicle from the erstwhile owner Mr. Kabil Ahmed on 15.05.2023 by executing a sale letter on the same date which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. He has also placed the affidavit sworn-in, on 28.08.2025 by the parties concerned showing that the vehicle has been sold to the petitioner concerned on 15.05.2023. As such, he submits that there is no impediment in handing over the vehicle in interim custody to the petitioner concerned pending the trial. He placed Section 19 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to substantiate his point. Section 19 and 20 is reproduced below: “19. Property passes when intended to pass.— (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in sections Page No.# 4/10 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. 20. Specific goods in a deliverable state.— Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed.” 7. He further states that since in the instant case the article involved is a movable property, the property passes to the buyer as soon as the contract is made. In the instant case, he submitted that the article involved is a Jeep and the agreement is entered between the parties for the sale thereof and as such the ownership has passed on to the petitioner concerned. He further places reliance on the following decisions in the case of: 1) In Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Another reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 519, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 23 that the vehicle being goods, the sale will be covered by the provision of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which makes it clear that conveyance of ownership of vehicle would stand concluded upon execution of document of sale or the transfer and registration of the new owner by the authorities concerned would be a post-sale event. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 27 of the said judgment that mere failure to get the registration in the name of the new owner of an already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle despite being physically handed over to the new owner cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as still being in possession and control of the former owner. 2) He also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Page No.# 5/10 Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 as well as the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State Of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. 8. On the other hand, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram submits that the finding of the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act that the ownership of the vehicle is not properly proved can be considered as a correct proposition of law. She also submits that the sale letter which was annexed by the petitioner in his petition has no witnesses and was not registered and the same was not on a non-judicial stamped paper. As such, she submits that the owner is not ascertained and the vehicle cannot be given in custody to the petitioner concerned. 9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments made by both the counsels and have gone through the records of the case. 10. It is no res integra that the articles seized in connection with any offence should not be kept in Police Station or Malkhana for long, since the same would result in destruction of the articles in time. As far as vehicles seized in connection with ND&PS cases are concerned, there are provisions in the ND&PS Act of 1985 for confiscation of the same. The relevant provision in the ND&PS Act is Section 60 as well as Section 63 of the Act. 11. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 60, it is provided that any conveyance used in carrying the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance are liable for confiscation unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was used without the knowledge of the owner himself or his agent if any, and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Page No.# 6/10 12. Under Section 63 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 it is provided that the Court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under the Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or 61 or 62, only after deciding as to whether the accused is to be convicted, acquitted or discharged. Further, proviso under Section 63, it is provided that no order of confiscation of an article shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim. A conjoint reading of Section 60 and 63 makes it abundantly clear that the confiscation of the vehicle used in carrying the contraband can only be done after the conclusion of the trial. It also makes it clear that pre-trial disposal of conveyance is possible only if no one claims possession or custody of the same. 13. It is also seen in the ND&PS Act, 1985 that there is no provision for allowing interim custody of the vehicle concerned. In that case, Section 36C of the ND&PS Act, 1985 would come into operation which provides that provision of CrPC, 1973 would be applicable in certain circumstances. 14. Section 451 of the CrPC, 1973 which is now Section 497 of BNSS, 2023 provides for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. 15. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) is reproduced here below for ready reference:- “497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending during trial in certain cases – (1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of Page No.# 7/10 such property pending the conclusion of the investigation, inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court or the Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "property" includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody; (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 2)…. (3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1) (4) …… (5) …….”. 16. Applying the aforesaid provision in the case at hand, there is no bar in giving the vehicle used in carrying the contrabands in interim custody to the owner concerned. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the number of decisions has held that the vehicle has to be given to the rightful owner pending trial so that the vehicle does not get destroyed being kept in the police custody for long. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), it is held at Page No.# 8/10 paragraph 17 that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in the said decision that in any case before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicles should be taken and detail punchnama should be taken, which is also provided in Section 497 of BNSS, 2023. 19. In Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically stated that if vehicle is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. The vehicles in police custody are stored in open and amenable to destruction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and by suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. 20. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner bought the vehicle from the erstwhile owner Sh. Kabil Ahmed on 15.05.2023 and the offence in connection with which the said vehicle was seized had happened on 28.07.2023 i.e. after around 2 months of the purchase. Therefore, it is seen that the period is very less from the date of sale of the vehicle to the petitioner and the date of seizure of the vehicle in connection with the offence concerned and it can safely be held that registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner could not be done in the meantime. The affidavit which was executed between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner on 28.04.2025 also establishes the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), a vehicle can also be given in custody to a third person or to the Page No.# 9/10 person from whom the vehicle was seized or to the Insurance company. This finding makes it abundantly clear that the vehicle should not be kept in the police station or elsewhere for long and it should be given to any of the parties mentioned above and if nobody claims, then the vehicle is ordered to be auctioned by this Court. So in any circumstances, the vehicle should not be kept in open as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. It is seen in the instant case that the vehicle is kept by the authorities concerned in open for 1 year 10 months 20 days as of today. The same is not called for in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the authorities concerned are directed to release in interim the vehicle i.e. Mahindra Thar B/R No. AS-12-AD- 9507 to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) before the Hon’ble Court. 2) The petitioner shall produce the seized vehicle before the Trial Court as and when called for during the trial and also during the confiscation proceedings, if any such proceeding is initiated. 3) The petitioner shall not alienate the seized vehicle or change its nature and character during the pendency of the case. 4) The seized vehicle shall not be used for any offence. 5) The vehicle before its release should be properly photograph and photograph will be made part of the record. Engine No. and Chassis No. of the vehicle should also be noted for future reference. 6) The authority concerned should also prepare necessary documents for identification of the vehicle which shall be authenticated by the Page No.# 10/10 Investigating Officer, owner of the vehicle by signing the same. 22. As such, the impugned Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Special court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl Judicial District in Criminal Misc. Application No. 31/2025 is accordingly modified. 23. The Criminal Revision petition stands disposed off. JUDGE Comparing Assistant