Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Bhagwan Din, J.—This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 13899 passed by the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Denat rejecting the application filed by the revisionist for release of Hero Honda Motor cycle alleged to have been used in carrying/transporting 1 kg. Charas,

It is stated that the police of the police station Rasoolabad intercepted two persons riding a Hero Honda Motorcycle and recovered 1 kg. Charas from the tool box. The police arrested those persons on spot and seized the Charas and also the Hero Honda Motorcycle.

The seizure of the vehicle was reported to the Court concerned, therefore, the revisionist moved an application for release of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. The trial Court rejected the application on two grounds, firstly, that me applicant failed to produce the documents of the ownership of the Motorcycle and secondly, that he could not demonstrate the circumstances under which the vehicle was used in carrying the contraband Charas.

Sri P.K. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist, urged that the sale certificate issued by M/s. Mishra Automobile, an authorised dealer, was filed in the Court below showing that the applicant is the owner of the Motorcycle in question, but the Court below did not consider this document. He has further urged that the proof of the fact that the Motorcycle was used without the knowledge of the applicant, shall be produced before the authority concerned during the confiscation proceedings. Hence, the reasons recorded by the trial Court, in rejecting the application for release of the motorcycle, are not just and legal.

On the other hand learned A.G.A. urged that the confiscation proceedings have been started, hence, it would not be proper to release the vehicle at this stage.

The provisions of subsection (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act are applied when confiscation proceedings are drawn before the authority concerned. The vehicle shall not be confiscated, if it is used without knowledge of the owner. This legal proposition ought to have been taken into consideration while disposing of the application of the revisionist.

Apart that this Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim. State of U.P., UP Cr R 648 and in many other cases, had held that the confiscation proceedings shall not be a bar to the release of the vehicle used in the carrying/transporting the contraband drugs, on interim basis.

Having regard to the above legal proposition, I am of the view, that me Court below has wrongly rejected the application, on the above two grounds. The revision, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

The revision is allowed. The order dated 13899 is hereby quashed. The revisionist shall move an application afresh before the trial Court and the trial Court will release the vehicle, if the revisionist furnishes proof of the ownership of the vehicle. Revision allowed.