The court ruled that vehicles involved in narcotics offenses should not be released during trial, emphasizing strict enforcement of confiscation provisions under the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

By way of filing present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, whereby, the application for releasing the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated without waiting for the conclusion of the trial. It is argued that the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 27.08.2022 has dismissed the application for releasing the vehicle without initiating any confiscation proceedings. It is also argued that in the present case charge-sheet has already been filed against the accused and trial may take its own time to conclude, therefore, if the vehicle is not released its condition may deteriorate and its value would be reduced substantially as it is lying in an open place at the police station, therefore, revision petition may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision petition. He argued that the accused was carrying opium containing weight of 130 grams without any permit on the said motor cycle. It is also submitted that under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act any vehicle used to carrying any narcotic drug is liable to confiscation unless the owner of the vehicle proved that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself. It is also argued that the proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle can be initiated against the owner at any stage and it is not required that such proceedings be initiated after concluding the trial.

4. Learned trial court while dismissing the application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Smt. Lalita Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 2014(2) RCC (Raj.) 579 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan : 2000 CriLJ 3971 (S.C.).

5. In the matter of Smt. Lalita Devi (supra) the coordinate Bench of this Court after taking note of Sections 60 and 63 of the N.D.P.S. Act has observed as under:-

"The NDPS Act also provided for confiscation of a vehicle if it is found to be used for carrying a narcotic drug and, therefore, the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are equally applicable to the present case also. It is pertinent to note that the authorized officer under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act in the aforesaid case ordered to release the seized Jeep to the interim custody of the owner of the vehicle on the condition that he shall furnish irrevocable bank guarantee from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case charged against the Jeep. The owner of the vehicle being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court modified the order of the authorized officer in the manner that the aforesaid condition of the bank guarantee was removed. The State of Karnataka challenged the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the lst para of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it even does not approve the order of the Authorized Officer, who released the vehicle on the condition that the owner would furnish irrevocable bank guarantee. It is thus clear that Hon'ble Apex Court was of the firm view that in such matters in which the vehicle is liable to be confiscated normally it is not be released even temporarily during pendency of trial or confiscation proceedings. In the present case also as the seized vehicle is liable to be confiscated by the Court at the conclusion of the trial or of the confiscation proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner, I am of the view that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Courts below if they refused to release t