ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. No one appears on behalf of Union of India despite the fact that counter affidavit has been filed by the special public prosecutor (NCB).

3. By the present criminal revision, revisionist has challenged the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-16, Varanasi in Case No.10 of 2019, under Sections-8, 20, 27-A, 29, 60 (III) of NDPS Act, Police Station-N.C.B. Mahanagar, Lucknow was rejected on the ground that the applicant could not brought on record any evidence that this fact was not in his knowledge that his vehicle was used in the aforesaid crime. Therefore, on the ground of Section 60(3) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the aforesaid application was rejected.

4. As per against the case of the prosecution itself, only five packet containing ganja was alleged to be recovered from his vehicle though, there was no independent witness in the aforesaid recovery and ganja was recovered from the truck standing behind his vehicle. It is further stated that vehicle in question was purchased on loan for which he is paying EMI. His vehicle, after confiscation, were lying in the concerned Police Station and will be damaged, if not released. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in MCRC No.4636 of 2022 (Kapil Jha Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) in which the Hon'ble Court after relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 (10) SCC 283 observed that the vehicle confiscated under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act but by virtue of Section 36-C as well as Section 51 of N.D.P.S. Act, it is clear that the provision of Section 451 or 457(1) of Cr.P.C. also applicable which provides that during pendency of the trial, property should be released in the interim custody of the owner so as to save it from damage.

5. I am of the view since the vehicle in question was lying in the concerned police station since 2019 and the revisionist has been paying the installment of bank and there would be no useful purpose to keep the vehicle in police station under the confiscation because trial may take time, in the meantime, vehicle in question may be damaged. Therefore, the impugned order is absolutely erroneous being in contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai (supra), therefore deserve to be set aside and it is directed that interim custody of Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.BR-10-PA-9743 be given to the revisionist on producing Registration Certificate of the concerned vehicle during the pendency of trial and also furnishing the security of Rs.2,00,000/-to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed.

7. In view of the above, the finding of the Court below that since the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, interim custody cannot be granted, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-16, Varanasi is hereby set aside. Accordingly, by allowing the application, the vehicle is ordered to be released on following conditions:-

(i) It is ordered that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court by the revisionist, the aforesaid vehicle (Scorpio bearing registration No. BR-10-PA-9743) shall be handed over to the respective revisionist on Supurdginama on proving ownership of the same;

(ii) whenever it would be required by the competent Court the same will be produced on petitioner's own expenses at the place as would be directed in this regard;

(iii) at the time of release of the vehicle on Supurdginama, the aforesaid Authority shall ensure to take note of chassis number, e