The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the NDPS Act provisions regarding the release and disposal of seized vehicles, emphasizing the protection of innocent owners' rights.

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 16.02.2018, Annexure-4 to this petition.

2. The petitioner herein filed a special petition for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AT-0341 seized in connection with Khowai P.S. Case No.2017/KHW/128 under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [the NDPS Act in short]. In the complaint, it has been alleged that having laid the ambush, the Coy Commander, 48 BN. BSF, had noticed that two persons were approaching towards the ambush. When those persons were challenge, they tried to escape but with great efforts, they were over-powered. On search, from the vehicle 18 bags of cannabis were found and those narcotic substances were seized. The vehicle was also seized.

The Special Judge, West Tripura, Khowai by the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 has observed that ‘thus, it is clear from the provisions of NDPS Act that the vehicle, which is used for transporting the contraband is to be seized by the police for the purpose of recovery of contraband and further as per provisions of section 60(3) NDPS Act, the vehicle used for transportation of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is liable to be confiscated, hence cannot be released.’

Section 60(3) of the NDPS act provides that:

“(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2[or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (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 agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”

Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides the procedure relating to confiscation. For purpose of reference, the relevant statutory provisions are extracted hereunder:

“(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly. Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, 1[controlled substance,] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.”

In connection with the said case, the vehicle was seized and the Special Judge, West Tripura, Khowai has rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. Hence, the said order dated 16.02.2018 has been challenged in this criminal petition.

3. The petitioner claimed that he is the registered owner of the said Pickup van. On 17.12.2017 his vehicle was detained by the BSF in connection with the said case. According to the petitioner, owner of the said vehicle, he was not aware of carrying any illegal goods by his vehicle and the petitioner always restricted the driver not to carry any illegal goods