1. The applicant is registered owner of Honda Car bearing registration No.CG-04/LE-9444 and that vehicle was found involved in a criminal case bearing Special S.T.No.43/2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dharmendra and others) pending in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Dhamtari. It was further alleged that on 30-7-2016 the said vehicle was found carrying 9.600 Kgs. of Ganja. The applicant moved an application under Section 457 of the CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the learned Special Judge holding that prima facie, the vehicle was found involved in the commission of offence and is likely to be confiscated therefore, interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be granted feeling aggrieved against which this revision has been preferred by the applicant herein.

2. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the learned Special Judge (NDPS) has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order rejecting the application. He would contend that if the seized vehicle is kept for a long time in open place in the police station, there is danger of it being damaged by vagaries of weather and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the vehicle in the police station till the trial is concluded. The applicant is ready and willing to comply with all the conditions which may be imposed for production of the vehicle seized or comply the order of confiscation which may be passed after trial by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the applicant be granted the interim custody of the vehicle till the final disposal or till the final confiscation proceeding.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, would oppose the criminal revision and would submit that huge quantity of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle and if the vehicle is released at this stage, it would frustrate the purpose of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the application has rightly been rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

5. In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Sections 60 and 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which state as under: -

"60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.-

(1) ****** ***

(2) ****** ***

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, 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 of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

63. Procedure in making confiscations.-(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 to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly:

Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim:

Provided further that if