ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel.

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T. (S) NDPS Case No.02 of 2010 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of his Ambassador Car bearing registration No.OR-05-N 3521, the petitioner has filed this revision.

The vehicle in question is allegedly involved in the commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and seized by the Police in Rengali P.S. Case No.61 of 2010 corresponding to C.T. (S) NDPS Case No.02 of 2010. The petition has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is himself is an accused in the offence and if the vehicle is released in his zima there is very chance of tampering of the vehicle so far as its colour and its parts are concerned and the vehicle may be used again for illegal purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no statutory bar for releasing a vehicle seized in connection with commission of an offence under the NDPS Act merely because the owner-petitioner has been made as an accused in the case.

The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that since the vehicle is liable for confiscation under Section 60 (3) of the N.D.P.S. Act and there are materials on record that the petitioner-owner is involved in the commission of offence of carrying the contraband ganja, the impugned order needs no interference.

Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides for confiscation of the Narcotic Drugs etc., in respect of which the offence has been committed and conveyances which were used for commission of offence. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act is as hereunder :

“(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) of 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 or of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”

From the above provision, it is clear that a vehicle used in the commission of the offence is liable for confiscation, which means that on proof of commission of offence and that the vehicle was used in such commission, at the conclusion of trial, the vehicle in question shall be confiscated. The confiscation of a vehicle enures to the benefit of the State. If not confiscated, the property in question has to be returned or released in favour of the rightful owner entitled for possession or to the person from whom it was seized. In case the property is not released and the trial continues for long time, its value gets diminished due to damage caused by exposure to sun and rain and in that even whether it is confiscated or not confiscated, no body gains anything and, on the contrary, in the event of confiscation the State would stand to lose and in the event of no confiscation the owner will be the loser. This is the reason for which in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat; (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stipulated guidelines for prompt interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with the commission of an offence.

No provision in the N.D.P.S. Act has been brought to the notice of the Court which bars interim release of the vehicle where the owner has been implicated in the offence as one of the accused.

The impugned order is accordingly set aside and it is directed that the Ambassador Car shall be released in favour of the petitioner subject to the following conditions that :

(i)the petitioner shall furnish a cash security of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) and furnish property security worth Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy f