JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to order dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No. 66-NL/4 of 2020, whereby an application having been filed by the respondent for release of the vehicle in case FIR No. 66 of 2019, dated 7.11.2019, registered at NCB, Chandigarh, under Sections 18, 25, 28, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'Act'), came to be allowed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the application for release of the vehicle, as detailed hereinabove, came to be filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on behalf of the respondent. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 28.08.2020 allowed the application and ordered that the custody of the vehicle be given to its rightful claimant i.e. respondent alongwith the documents after furnishing supardari in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/JMIC, Nalagarh. While passing aforesaid order of release of vehicle, court below also put conditions that the respondent will produce the vehicle before this Court or police as and when required and she will not change the nature and character of the vehicle, especially the cavity made in the said vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case before this Court.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of release of vehicle made in favour of the respondent, petitioner-NCB, at whose instance FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-NCB vehemently argued that impugned order in the instant proceedings is totally contrary to the provisions contained under Section 60 of the Act, which specifically provides for confiscation of conveyance used in carrying/transporting any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance. He further submits that since owner of the conveyance sought to be released failed to prove that vehicle so used was without her knowledge, there was no occasion for the court below to order release of the vehicle allegedly used for transportation of the contraband, which is subject matter of the case.

6. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned counsel representing the respondent while supporting the impugned order of release made in favour of the respondent, contends that till the time factum with regard to involvement of the vehicle in the alleged incident is not proved in accordance with law, vehicle allegedly used for transportation of contraband cannot be confiscated, rather same is liable to be released in favour of its rightful owner after completion of necessary codal formalities.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that vehicle bearing registration No. HP-12-J-4403 (Mahindra Pick up) was apprehended by the police allegedly transporting the contraband prohibited under NDPS Act. Aforesaid vehicle though was owned by the respondent namely, Sangeeta Bhardwaj, but she had handed over the same to accused Kuldeep by way of higher purchase agreement. As per own case of the petitioner, sum of Rs. 16, 200/- per month was being paid by main accused Kuldeep against loan installments. Since, the case stands registered against the main accused Kuldeep and trial is under process, respondent being lawful owner of the vehicle, as detailed hereinabove, made an application for release of the vehicle, which prayer of her came to be resisted on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that vehicle in question can be again used