The court ruled that provisions for interim custody under CrPC Sections 451 and 457 apply, despite NDPS Act confiscation risk, allowing for interim release of vehicles involved in drug-related offences. (Par. 17)

ORDER :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Surajpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 21/2021 by which the petitioner's application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act), has been rejected finding no merit.

2. The petitioner is registered owner of Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15-DH-7396, which was found involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. He filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle, which has been rejected holding that since the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, therefore, it cannot be directed to be released on interim custody.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, yet, by virtue of Section 36 -C of the NDPS Act as well as by virtue of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions contained in Section 451 or 457(1) of the CrPC would be applicable as none of the provisions of the NDPS Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the CrPC and therefore in a deserving case, the right to interim custody provided under Section 451 or 457(1) of the CrPC cannot be denied and if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police station till the trial is concluded, it will go waste and it will be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , (2002) 10 SCC 283.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that in view of the provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question is not liable to be released in favour of petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of vehicle seized in commission of the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which states as under:-

“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.– (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances lawfully produced, imported inter- State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances which is liable to confiscation under sub- section (1) and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub- section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation.

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance of controlled substance, or any article liable to confisc