ORDER

This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Heard both parties.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Gaighat PS Case No. 396 of 2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. BR06PD4215 has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. BR06PD4215 was seized in connection with Gaighat PS Case No. 396 of 2020 while being used as conveyance for transporting narcotic substance.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is bona fide owner of the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. BR06PD4215 which was seized by the police while being used as conveyance for transporting 5 Kg of Ganja on 29.11.2020 in connection with Gaighat PS Case No. 396 of 2020. Petitioner is not accused in the said case and it is submitted that without her knowledge and connivance her vehicle was used as conveyance for transporting narcotic drugs by the friends of her son. It is next contended that no useful purpose would be served by keeping such seized vehicle at the police station for a long period, as the aforesaid vehicle is lying at the police station and getting deteriorated day by day. It is further submitted that confiscation proceeding has not been started or till date no such notice has been received by the petitioner. There is no bar in the NDPS Act for return of the seized vehicle during pendecy of the inquiry or trial of the criminal case and as such the provisions of Section 451 or Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked for return of the seized vehicle during any inquiry or trial before the criminal court. In support of the same, she has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat wherein the Apex Court has directed the criminal court to exercise the power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the seized articles on conditions pending final decision of the criminal case. The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 17 of the said Judgement which is as follows:—

“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the applications for return of such vehicles.”

5. However, counsel for the State Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey vehemently opposed the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner and submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was seized while being used as conveyance for transporting narcotic substance and the son of petitioner was involved in such offence. It is further submitted that the said vehicle is liable for confiscation under sub-section 3 of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985. He further refers to Section 63 of the Act says that in the trial of offence under this Act, if 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 and as such, he submits that the release of vehicle does not come under ambit of section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act is as follows:—

“(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance (or controlled substances), or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each