JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an impugned order dated 28.10.2022 and the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Cooch Behar (NDPS), in connection with NDPS Case No. 102 of 2021 under Section 21(b) (II) (c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act arising out of Mathabanga Police Station Case No. 500 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021.

2. The Order under revision dated 28.10.2022 is as follows:-

NDPS Case No. 102/21

Order No. 22

Dated 28.10.22

“……………….Today is also fixed for hearing on the point of returning of vehicle.

It is found that one of the Power of Attorney holder filed a petition to take back the seized vehicle bearing No. HR-55L-7603. Accordingly, report was called for from the I.O.

It is found that I.O vehemently opposes to return the said vehicle.

Perused the record and it shows that 102 kgs of ganja was recovered from the said vehicle. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to return the said vehicle to its registered owner. Accordingly, the prayer for returning of the vehicle is considered and rejected.”

Dictated & Corrected by,

Sd/-

Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court,

Cooch Behar, (NDPS)

3. The Order under revision dated 29.10.2022 is as follows:-

NDPS Case No. 102/21

Order No. 23

Dated 29.10.22

“………………The seized vehicle i.e. milk tanker vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55L-7603 be confiscated to the state under the provision of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act as the owner could not establish that the vehicle was used for carrying the contraband articles without his knowledge.”

Dictated & Corrected by,

Sd/-

Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court,

Cooch Behar, (NDPS)

4. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays down:-

“452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.-

(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.

(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.

(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.

(5) In this section, the term" property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.”

5. The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat, (2003 SCC (Cri) 1943), on October 1, 2002, held:-

“8. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in a number of matters. In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 598] this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being re