Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(2),32

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 516A

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022]-------Ss. 9(2) & 32---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A--Confiscation and release of case property in narcotic cases on superdari---Scope--Prosecution case was that 744-cartons of medicine were recovered from the container belonging to the accused---Accused filed an application for superdari of the recovered medicine, which was allowed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record showed that the Investigating Officer was specifically asked by the Trial Court whether any incriminating articles were recovered from 744 cartons of medicines and he replied in negative---If that was the position of the case keeping the medicines in the container till the final disposal of the case could perish them and it would be appropriate to release the on superdari, however the Trial Court could direct the production of the medicine by preparing proper inventory if the subject medicine were believed to be case property, which seemed to be not the case of the prosecution---Section 516-A, Cr.P.C outlined the Court's authority to order the custody and disposal of property involved in a crime---Court could order the safe keeping of the property during the inquiry or trial---If the property was perishable, the Court could order its sale or disposal after recording necessary evidence if the same was case property---Court could order the preparation of samples of drugs for safe keeping and destruction of the remaining portion---In the present case, Investigating Officer had prima facie opined that 744 cartons of medicine were not incriminating articles, however the prosecutor insisted that those 744 cartons of medicine could be said to be the case property though not narcotic substance---If said 744 cartons of medicine were not prohibited medicine the same could not be kept in a container to perish, however the Trial Court had taken care of that aspect of the case by its release to the applicant/ accused persons by directing the Nazir to prepare proper inventory---Said order seemed to be reasonable and did not justify interference---Appeal was dismissed…