B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.

1. The 2nd accused in crime No. 513/2016 of Kasargod police station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the NDPS Act'), filed application before the court below under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') seeking for the release of the vehicle involved in that case. The court below dismissed the said application, against which Crl.M.C.2138/2017 has been filed by the accused. The registered owner of the vehicle involved in Crime No.517/2016 of Kasaragod Police Station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, filed application under Section 451 of the Code before the court below seeking for the release of the vehicle involved in that case. He is not an accused in the crime. The court concerned dismissed the said application. The registered owner challenges the said order in Crl.M.C.2142/2017. Since the challenge in both these cases is the orders passed by the court below, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking for the release of the vehicles involved in the offence under the NDPS Act, these two Cr.M.C.s are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard both sides.

3. In Crl.M.C. No.2138/2017, the prosecution allegation is that on 25.07.2016 at 6.45 p.m., the petitioner and the accused were found in possession of 3.430 kg of ganja in vehicle bearing registration No.KL-60-D-575, belonging to the petitioner, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was also seized along with the contraband on 25.07.2016.

4. In Crl.M.C.2142/2017, the prosecution allegation is that on 26.07.2016 at about 7.20 pm, the accused in the said case was found in possession of 1.950 kg of ganja in the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-14 -Q-703, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was also seized from the spot along with the contraband.

5. In Crl.M.C.2138/2017, the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner stating that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Act as the petitioner was the second accused in the said crime. The application filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.C.2142/2017 was dismissed by the court below stating that since the petitioner was working abroad, there was chance for the vehicle to reach the hands of persons who indulge in the transport of ganja.

6. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides that any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance 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, and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. The provisions of Section 63 of the NDPS Act empowers the court to confiscate the vehicle involved in NDPS offence. Sub-section(1) of Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides that in the trial of offences under the NDPS 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 the court decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 63 provides 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.

7. On a combined reading of Section 63 and subsection (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it is clear that when any conveyance used for carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is liable to confiscation, the confiscation order can be made by the court only at the end of the trial and that itself, only after