Confiscation of vehicles under the N.D.P.S. Act can only occur post-trial, and trial courts must evaluate release applications on their merits.

JUDGMENT :

Manjive Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgement and order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur whereby, the application filed by the revisionist for release of his Innova Car, bearing Registration No. HR78-3205, had been rejected and the vehicle had been confiscated in favour of the State Government.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist is registered owner of Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR78-3205. The police recovered ten grams of smack from the aforesaid vehicle while the revisionist was moving in the said vehicle. The police had registered a criminal case as Case Crime No. 509 of 2021 under Section 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Police Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur. The Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence against the revisionist, had filed Charge- Sheet before the competent court in respect of the offence committed by the revisionist punishable under Section 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

4. The revisionist filed an application for release of the aforesaid Innova Car bearing Registration No. HR78-3205 in his favour. The police raised objection over the aforesaid application for release of the vehicle on the ground that the revisionist is in habit of committing offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and the vehicle in question had been purchased by him out of the money earned by the sale of the contraband substances.

5. Learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur had passed an order on 20.06.2023 whereby, the application filed by the revisionist for release of the vehicle in question had been rejected and simultaneously the said vehicle had been confiscated.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that a vehicle carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can be confiscated in exercise of power under Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 but the said power is to be exercised as per the procedure prescribed under Section 63(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. It has further been submitted that Section 63(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, in categorical terms, provides that the power of confiscation of any article including the vehicle can be exercised only after the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged i.e. only on conclusion of the trial whereas in the present case, the trial has yet not been concluded therefore, the order passed by the trial court confiscating the vehicle in question, on its face, is unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2025 (Bishwajit Dey vs The State Of Assam) arising out of the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13370 of 2024 and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that any vehicle seized in connection with the offence punishable under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 can be confiscated only after conclusion of the trial i.e. when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged whereas, in the case of the revisionist, trial has yet not been concluded therefore, the order passed by the trial court confiscating the vehicle in question, on its face, is illegal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement rendered in the case of Bishwajit Dey (Supra) had categorically held that normally, where the accused himself is owner of the vehicle use