The interpretation of the provisions of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the circumstances under which a vehicle used in transporting contraband drugs can be released on an interim basis.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2018 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Dehradun, in case crime no.64 of 2018 State vs. Chandramohan, whereby said court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist for release of vehicle Honda Activa in his favour.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2018 an FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 at P.S. Cantt. Dehradun against one Chandramohan alleging therein that on 10.04.2018 while checking at Kaulagarh Chowk, the driver of Scooty registration no.UK 07BL 1407 after seeing the police officials tried to escape from the spot, but was apprehended by the police personnel. On being asked, accused disclosed that he is carrying Charas with him. Upon inspection, 520 gm of Charas was found whereafter the accused was taken into custody and the vehicle in question was confiscated u/s 60 of N.D.P.S. Act. The revisionist, claiming himself to be the registered owner of Scooty, applied for its custody before the trial court. The trial court heard the revisionist and perused the provisions contained in Section 60 of N.D.P.S. Act and observed that the revisionist has not pleaded that without his knowledge or connivance the vehicle has been used for transporting the contraband and that under which circumstances, the revisionist’s vehicle was with the accused. Learned trial court, also placed reliance on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and rejected the application of the revisionist.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist was seeking interim custody of the vehicle by way of application but the trial court dealt with the matter and rejected the application as if it was dealing with the confiscation proceedings. According to the learned counsel, while passing the impugned order, the trial court has totally misinterpreted the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. To buttress his argument, learned counsel would place reliance upon a judgment rendered by Allahabd High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1999) 39 ACC 620 and would refer paras 6 and 7, which are extracted hereunder:

“6. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.s. Act are applied when confiscation proceedings are drawn before the authority concerned. The vehicle shall not be confiscated, if it is used without knowledge of the owner. This legal proposition ought to have been taken into consideration while disposing of the application of the revisionist.

7. Apart that this Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. and in may other cases, has held that the confiscation proceedings shall not be a bar to the release of the vehicle used in the carrying/transporting the contraband drugs, on interim basis.”

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the while dismissing the application of the revisionist the trial court has referred two judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court viz. Ganga Hire Purchased Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others (1999) 5 SCC 670 and Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Verma (2005) 5 SCC 330, but none of the judgments were found published in the law books.

5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the case-laws referred by the trial court as well as carefully perused the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

6. As regards the judgment relied on by the counsel for the revisionist, the Allahabad High Court while dealing with the issue, has placed reliance on another judgment of its Court. This Court finds that the Allahabad High Court has not considered the issue for release of vehicle in question. More so, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is, therefore, of no help to the revisionist.

7. Now, in so far as the judgments cited by the trial court that have been disputed by the counsel for the revisionist, is concerned, t