1. - Heard learned counsel as also learned counsel for UOI. By the impugned order dated 15.2.2001, jeep No. RJ 13-5316 was not given on supardaginama to the petitioner, who is registered owner of the vehicle. Hence, this petition under Section 482, Cr.RC.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel are that above jeep was seized in on NDPS Act offence from one Rajendra Kumar who was driver of registered owner of the jeep. Unless and until the offence is proved, the jeep cannot be confiscated and pending trial, jeep should have been given on supardaginama. On the contrary learned counsel of UOI has supported the impugned order, stating that if the jeep is released, chances of its again being used in NDPS offence cannot be ruled out or condition of the jeep may be deteriorate or same may have been transferred to some other person.

3. I have considered the rival contentions. Under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle used for conveyance of narcotics material is to be confiscated upon proving said offence. It is admitted fact by the learned counsel that trial is still pending. During pendency of the trial, if the above vehicle is kept at the office of N.C.B., Sriganganagar, its