HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Sangam Lal Aarak .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Balbeer Singh, Shiv Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.8.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Kaushambi in Vehicle Release Application No. 4 of 2025 (State Vs. Shyamu) arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi, whereby release application of vehicle No. UP-73 AJ-1080 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is owner of Vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-73 AJ-1080. He further submitted that the revisionist has not been made accused in the aforesaid case crime No. 102 of 2025. In this regard, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted a report of Police Station Pipari District Kaushambi that the revisionist-Sangam Lal) is an accused in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no offence under the NDPS Act is made out against the revisionist and the vehicle of the revisionist has wrongly been seized in the aforesaid offence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the vehicle was taken by the accused-Shyamu for treatment of his mother and it was not in the knowledge of the revisionist that the vehicle was being used for any other purpose.

5. The revisionist filed an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-73 AJ-1080 in his favour. Learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kaushambi had passed an order on 21.08.2025 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 A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently argued that there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 therefore, the revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the record of the