Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The present writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2022, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in NDPS Case No. 30/2021, arising out of Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No. 288 of 2021, dated 03.12.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 8(c)/21(c)/25/35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act, whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of TATA Tigor car, bearing Registration No. BR 09 AJ/0706, in his favour, which was seized in connection with Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No. 288 of 2021. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the District Court to release the car, in question, in his favour.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ application, is that the car of the petitioner, bearing Registration No. BR 09 AJ/0706, was parked outside the house of the FIRnamed accused and on search being made, 385 gms. of brown sugar was recovered from the said car. It has been alleged that the car, in question, was being used by the FIR-named accused persons for transportation of contraband substance and brown sugar has also been recovered from the same. The petitioner has been added as non-FIR named accused.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of the seized car, bearing Registration No. BR 09 AJ/0706. He was not aware about the brown sugar being kept inside the car. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and his car was actually seized on 02.12.2021 by the police, which would be evident from the GPS data, but the actual seizure has been shown by the police after lodging of the First Information Report against other accused persons on 03.12.2021. In support of his claim of ownership, the petitioner has annexed the registration certificate (owner book) at Annexure-2. He further submits that the confiscation proceeding has not yet been initiated and in view of Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the confiscation proceeding may not be initiated till the conclusion of the trial. He further submits that the car, in question, is kept in an open space in the police station and is subject to deterioration and losing its road worthiness on daily basis.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned District Court has failed to appreciate the legal provisions contained in Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, as well as the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Jai Kishan Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in 2021 (1) BLJ 374.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner for release of the car in his favour during pendency of the trial and/or confiscation proceeding and submits that petitioner had knowledge about the contraband Substance being kept inside the car in question and the car was standing in front of the house of the accused persons for transportation of the contraband substance. He further submits that commercial quantity of brown sugar has been recovered from the car, in question.

6. I have heard earned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. From perusal of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it appears that any conveyance used in carrying Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance is liable for confiscation, provided it is proved that the vehicle/conveyance was being used with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent. In absence of any such material, there cannot be any confiscation at