ORDER :

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in M.C.A. No.512/2019, arising out of N.D.P.S. Case No.02/2020, corresponding to Balumath P.S. Case No.237/2019, whereby, the prayer for release the vehicle has been rejected.

4. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that on 12.11.2019 at village Jogiyadih near Railway crossing at NH99, a Swift Desire Car of white colour having registration no. JH01CZ-4452 was intercepted and 1.520 Kg of opium was recovered from the physical possession of co-accused Soveran Munda. After this raid, another raid was conducted over Singhwahni Bus No.JH01DC-2956 and about 2.830 Kg of opium was recovered from the physical possession of co-accused Panda Munda.

5. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was not having any knowledge of transportation of 1.520 Kg. of opium in the said vehicle. He further submits that the driver was driving the vehicle and the petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle in question. He also submits that no purpose will be served if the vehicle in question is allowed to be destroyed in open. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 11.12.2020 in the case of Tikeshwar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1374 of 2020 and submits that in that case, the vehicle was directed to be released.

6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State opposes the prayer for release of the vehicle and submits that the driver has confessed about seizure of opium. According to him, the petitioner was having knowledge of transportation. He further submits that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act stipulates that the vehicle can be released only when the concerned person is able to prove that it was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and the petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle when it was seized. In the case of Tikeshwar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur has considered Sections 36-C and Section 60 of the NDPS Act as well as Sections 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. in paragraphs 3 and 6 of that judgment. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderlal Ambalal Desai (supra) has also been considered. Paragraph 17 of the judgment passed in the case of Tikeshwar Singh (supra) is quoted herein below:

“17. In view of the above, the finding of the learned Special Judge that since the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, interim custody under Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be granted, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba is hereby set aside. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and it was being used in the commission of offence and he is said to have given the said vehicle to the accused for his lawful purpose, but the accused has used it for the commission of alleged offence, the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. The matter is remitted to the Special Judge (NDPS) to pass order on the interim custody of the vehi