The interpretation of statutory provisions, such as Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the strict requirement for the vehicle to be used in carrying the contraband substance for confiscation, influenced the Court's decision in allowing the petition and directing the release of the vehicle.

ORDER

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby petitioner's application under Section 457/451 of the Code for release of his vehicle has been rejected.

2. Admitted facts relevant for the present purposes are that on 08.02.2020 a tanker (RJ-30-G-2352) was intercepted and on inspection thereof, it was revealed that the same was carrying 1162 kg of poppy straw.

3. The tanker and the poppy straw were seized and the persons were apprehended whereafter, as per the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was revealed that the petitioner's vehicle (Innova Car) bearing registration No.RJ.09-UA- 4006 was escorting the said tanker.

4. It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was recovered and seized (on the information of the co-accused) from petitioner's place and the same was neither found nor seized at the spot.

5. After the charge-sheet had been filed, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 451/457 of the Code and prayed that his vehicle be released on 'Supurdginama'.

6. The trial Court, however, rejected petitioner's application inter alia observing that since it was used for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1985'), it is liable for confiscastion under Section 60 of the Act.

7. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a poor person and he is in requirement of the vehicle in question and if the same is not released on 'Supurdginama', the petitioner's right will be prejudicially affected, as the trial of the case would take a long time.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner's prayer and argued that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the Act of 1985 and if the Court proposes to order release of the vehicle, then, the petitioner may be directed to furnish a bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle so that if the Court ultimately passes an order of confiscation of the vehicle its possession is assured or else at least amount to the extent of its value is secured.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.03.2021, reveals that the trial Court has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act. The trial Court has also noted that the applicant has been authorised by her husband-Ladulal Vaishnav registered owner of the vehicle whereas the same was found in possession of Allaharakha Khan S/o Amir Mohd. in whose favour the registered owner has executed an agreement to sell.

11. Before delving into the accuracy of the said order, it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case, namely, Section 60 of the Act of 1985, which reads thus :

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

12. (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2[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.'

13. A simple look at the provisions of Section 60 of the Act of 1985 show that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, if the same is used in carrying the contraband substance.

14. Indisputably, the vehicle in question was per se not used for carrying and transporting the