The proper procedure for confiscation and release of a vehicle under the N.D.P.S. Act must be followed, as outlined in Section 52A(1) and Section 63.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey appearing for NCB as well as Sri. Rajeshwar Singh, Rakesh Chand Srivastava, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. assisted by Rajnish Pandey and Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.9.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad in N.C.R. No. UPAD-01007233/2021 (State/NCB Vs. Vinod Yadav), under sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, arsing out of Case Crime no. 188 of 2021, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the vehicle bearing registration No. UP62 AT8908 belongs to the applicant and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle at police station which would result in the vehicle becoming junk. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 wherein it been held:-

"that any vehicle can not be permitted to be kept for a long time in the premise of police station and allowed to be destroyed. The fact and circumstance of this case is different from the fact and circumstance of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desi's case (Supra), hence the impugned order passed by learned Judge can not be said illegal or improper. However, it is made clear that if the application for confiscation has not been filed or is not pending or the vehicle has still not been confiscated the revisionist may file fresh application for release of his vehicle in order to avoid the damage before he court below and the learned Judge may consider the application according to provision of law".

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for N.C.B. as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has also placed the reliance of Revision Vs. Shajahan decided on 28.10.2019 in Crl. Rev. Pet No. 1449 of 2018 decided by the Kerala High Court, whereof the paragraph No. 4 and 5 of the judgement is quoted below:

4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioners is that the conveyances involved in transportation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances may not belong to the actual transporter, in which event, confiscation and destruction by the competent officer without any enquiry in that regard may affect the rights of the owner of such vehicle. In fact, S.63 of the Act had provided for a procedure in making confiscations. S.63 gives the power to the Court to decide whether any article or thing seized under the Act is liable to be confiscated in terms of Sections 60, 61 or 62 of the Act. Before the amendment to Section 52A, conveyance was not included as an item which should be seized and disposed. The very fact that conveyance had been incorporated in the amendment itself indicates that the Government intended to provide a special procedure to deal with such conveyance, while taking into account the fact that most of the transportation are done in conveyances which itself is defined Crl.R.P.No.1440/2018 & conn. cases u/s 2(viii) as meaning "a conveyance of any description whatsoever including any aircraft, vehicle or vessel." Therefore, if any vehicle is involved in transportation of narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance, such vehicles also could be seized and disposed of in terms of S.52A(1) of the Act. S.63 was a special procedure available at the inception of the Act and when the statute had been amended giving the power of disposal of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances to a special officer, he will have to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

5. When a Special Act prescribes the procedure for dealing in specified goods and the NDPS Act being a special statute and latter in time, the provisions of the special statute has to be fo