The court emphasized the liability for confiscation of a vehicle used for transporting illegal substances under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, and the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation.

This criminal misc. petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dt. 7-3-2006 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh (for short the trial Court') hereinafter, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 457, Cr. P.C. seeking interim custody, of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ04/T-0379, was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order impugned as also the material available on record.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No. RJ04/T-0379, which was seized by the police while it was used as conveyance by transporting 7 quintals and 28 kgs. of poppy straw in 18 bags on 15-7-2005. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the vehicle to remain at police station during the pendency of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 253 : (AIR 2003 SC 638) and two decisions of this Court in Sant Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) RLW 890 and in Govind Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 WLC (Raj) UC 255.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the release of the vehicle in question of "Superdaginama" during the pendency of the case and contends that undisputedly the vehicle in question was found using as conveyance in transporting 7 quintals and 28 kgs of poppy straw which is the commercial quantity and is liable to be confiscated under sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act' hereinafter). He has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1999 (5) SCC 670 : (AIR 2000 SC 449) and a decision of this Court in Prabhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 739/2007) decided on 4-7-2007.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Facts giving rise to the instant case are that on 15-7-2005 at 8.30 a.m. S.H.O. Police Station, Bhadsoda, Distt. Chittorgarh received a second information that a vehicle Tata Spacio bearing No. GJ 12 P-5124, which is driven by Bhera Ram and Dinesh Kumar is occupant of the said vehicle is transporting the poppy straw. The police intercepted the said vehicle and found Bhera Ram, who was driving the said vehicle and Dinesh Kumar was the occupant. On the vehicle being checked, it was found carrying 7 quintals and 28 kgs. of poppy straw in 18 bags. On further checking, it revealed that a fake registration has been shown on the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle which was checked and seized by the police bears the registration No. RJ04-T-0379, whereas in the vehicle, it was displayed "GJ-12P-5124". The police registered a crime report for the offences under Sections 6/15 of the NDPS Act and 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC.

7. The occupant of the said vehicle Dinesh Kumar claimed himself to be the owner of the said vehicle on the strength of agreement for sale, which was entered into in his favour by its registered owner, who is petitioner herein and placed on record a document showing that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to its owner Kita Ram petitioner herein on 5-5-2005 and the remaining amount has been paid in monthly instalments and as such since 5-5-2005, he is in possession of the vehicle in question as owner under the agreement for sale. On being asked to the petitioner, in whose favour, the registration stands, the petitioner clearly came with a case that he has sold the vehicle to Dinesh Kumar on 5-5-2005 by receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and remaining amount has been received in instalments, however, some parts of instalments are yet to be received an