The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of confiscation of vehicles used in carrying narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act and the conditions for release as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby, petitioner's application under Section 457 of the Code for release of his Tata Safari (No. RJ 19 UB 0366) on Supurdginama has been rejected.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that after investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet, however, the petitioner has been implicated in this case being registered owner of the vehicle in question.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the Tata Safari in question which was given to co-accused and the contraband substance was recovered from such vehicle on 02.03.2016.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.03.2022, reveals that the Court below has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

6. Before delving into the accuracy of the said order it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions dealing with confiscation and disposal of confiscated property, namely, sections 60 (3) and 63 (1) of the NDPS Act and section 452 (1) of the Code. Section 60 (3) of the NDPS reads as under:

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

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances], 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."

Section 63 (1) of the NDPS Act reads as under:

"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."

Section 452 (1) of the Code reads as under:

"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."

7. A conjoined reading of the above-quoted provisions of NDPS Act and the Code reveals the following:

(i) Any vehicle used to carry any narcotic drug/psychotropic substance/controlled substances/any article liable to confiscation under section 60(1) and 60(2), shall be liable to confiscation;

(ii) Upon conclusion of the trial of the accused, the Court must decide if such vehicle is liable to confiscation;

(iii) If such vehicle is liable to confiscation the Court shall pass an order for confiscation;

(iv) The Court may not pass an order for confiscation if the owner of the vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

8. In the facts of the present case, this Court feels that an indefinite seizure of the vehicle will not serve any purpose. Per contra allowing an indefinite seizure of the vehicle would firstly create