DILLIP SINGH CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute centres round as to whether during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment) Act, a vehicle involved in transportation of contraband articles can be released in favour of the owner under Section 457. Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 23.3.2002, the learned Addl, Sessions Judge -cum -Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. No. 1 of 2002 declined to release the Petitioner who claims to be the owner of the said vehicle on the ground that the possibility of re -using the vehicle again for transporting the contraband articles cannot be ruled out. Admittedly the said vehicle was caught red -handed when transporting Ganja.

(3.) SUB -section (3) of Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment) Act specifically stipulates that any article or vehicle used for the purpose of commission of an offence under the said Act is liable for confiscation. In other words, the said article or vehicle must be before the Court at the time of trial and also at the end of the trial for the purpose of passing necessary orders. But then, the vehicle in which the contraband articles were transported should be kept in safe custody, so that when the same is confiscated and put to auction, that would fetch maximum price. If the vehicle is, however, allowed to remain at the police station without any care and subjected to rain and sun, its condition will deteriorate and even if at the end of the trial an order of confiscation is passed, the same would not be beneficial to the State. Thus, according to me, what is required during the pendency of the trial is to make adequate arrangement for maintenance of the vehicle which would be kept in proper condition and ensure its production in course of trial as and when required and/or at the end of the trial if the Court so requires.