The liability for confiscation of conveyance used in carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, and the procedure for making confiscations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, were central to the court's decision.

R.C.Kathuria, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the Judge Special Court, Mansa whereby prayer made by him for release of Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-04-0097 taken into possession during the investigation of the case bearing No. 43 dated 30.4.2000 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been declined.

2. In order to focus the controversy involved in the present case a few facts have to be stated. On 30.4.2000 Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-04- 0097 driven by Balbir Singh was intercepted by the Police. One other person was also found sitting in the said car. Search of the car led to the recovery of 3 bags each containing 30 Kgs. poppy straw. During the investigation of the case, the car in question was released to Gurdev Singh, petitioner-accused on furnishing the bond that he would produce the same as and when required by the Court. On 6.7.2001, the car was not produced in Court and for that reason statement of witness of the prosecution could not be recorded. Consequently, spurdari bond of the car was forfeited to the State and spurdari of the petitioner in respect of the car in question was cancelled. Subsequently, the petitioner produced the car in Court on 24.8.2001 but the same was ordered to be taken into possession. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application on 5.9.2001 to the Special Judge, Mansa with a prayer to release the car on spurdari to him. The petitioner had taken the plea that he had failed to produce the car on 6.7.2001 as the car had gone out of order. The Special Judge, Mansa came to the conclusion that the petitioner had intentionally not produced the car on 6.7.2001 and for that reason it would not be advisable to release the car again on spurdari to him. Notice was taken by him of the observations made in Narender Kaur v. Arun Sheoran, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 266, wherein taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case the interim custody of the Maruti car allowed by the petitioner in that case to be used for carrying contraband had been declined. It is this order which had been challenged in the present petition.

3. I heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel at length.

4. The primary controversy raised in the present petition has to be determined in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 60(3) and 63 of the Act and Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code). The relevant provisions of Section 60(3) of the Act read as under :-

"60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyance to confiscation.- (1) xx xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx xx

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, 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."

Section 63 of the Act further provides as follows :-

"63. Procedure in making confiscations. - (1) In the "trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly :