ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 18.6.2021 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 33/2021 by which the petitioner’s revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized for commission of offence under section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short “the NDPS’”Act) has been rejected finding no merit.

2. The petitioner is registered owner of Tata Tigor Car bearing registration No. MP07-TA2281, which was found involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. He filed an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena which was rejected on 4.6.2021 against which he filed a revision before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed holding that since the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under section 60 of the NDPS Act, therefore, it cannot be directed to be released on interim custody.

3. Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated under section 60 of the NDPS Act, yet, by virtue of section 36-C of the NDPS Act as well as by virtue of section 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions contained in section 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable as none of the provisions of the NDPS Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, in a deserving case, the right of interim custody provided under section 451 or 457(1) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be denied and if the vehicle is allowed to remain in police station till the trial is concluded, it will go waste and it will be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v.State of Gujarat [(2002 (10) SCC 283)].

4. On the other hand, Shri G.P.Chaurasia, learned Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submits that in view of the provisions contained in section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question is not liable to be released in favour of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records.

6. Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of vehicle seized in commission of the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which states as under :--

“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.-(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to be confiscation.

(2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances lawfully produced, imported inter- State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation.

(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any article liable to confiscation under subsection (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 ag