ORDER :

Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 18.12.2020 in Crl.M.P. No. 208 of 2020 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in connection with Crime No. 287 of 2020 of Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") for grant of interim custody of his Light Goods Vehicle i.e. Ashok Leyland Van bearing Registration No. TN 05 BP 8453, the present criminal revision case is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the: petitioner would submit that the Court below dismissed the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated to the State, if ultimately the case results in conviction. It has further observed that the vehicle was used for transportation of Ganja and as the investigation is still pending, the petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the case. Learned counsel submits that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and moreover, there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle and that the petitioner is not involved in the crime. Learned counsel submits that just because the investigation is pending, that cannot be a ground to refuse the petition filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if a vehicle seized under NDPS Act for being used in transporting narcotic goods, the owner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle and this Court has granted interim custody of the vehicles in similar cases. Hence, his petition may be allowed.

5. It is appropriate to extract Section 457 of Cr.P.C. which reads thus:

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him-on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

6. As per Section 457 of Cr.P.C., if the person is known and when there is no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the Magistrate may order property be delivered to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit.

7. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the seized vehicle. It is clear that there is no bar under the NDPS Act on the Courts to order for interim custody of a vehicle which is seized in a crime registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. Section 63 of the NDPS Act reads thus:

"(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable