PANKAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for release of Tata Victa vehicle bearing registration no. BR-10F/6800 seized in Custom Case No. VIII (10)50-CUS/BTH/07-08 (Trial No. 1 of 2008) in favour of the petitioner who is the owner of the said vehicle. The prosecution case is that 188 kgs. of GANJA was recovered from the vehicle in question at Patna for which a case was lodged against the driver of the said vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is absconding even today. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and he had sent it to Patna for repairing. When the vehicle did not return on 15.10.2007, then the petitioner made enquiry and learnt that his vehicle had been seized by the Customs Officials for carrying psychotropic substances. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute as far as the ownership of the vehicle in question is concerned and all the documents regarding the ownership are with him and had been filed before the Court below.

However, the Court below has not released the vehicle on the ground that it was involved in the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State refers to Section 16 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and submits that the section provides that any vehicle that is used for carrying narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances will be subject to the confiscating proceedings unless the owner of the said vehicle proves that he had no knowledge that the vehicle was being used for commission of offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner can only prove that he had no knowledge that the Tata Victa vehicle was carrying GANJA when he will be given opportunity to do so either at the trial or during the confiscation proceeding.

At present, the petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case and there is no confiscating proceeding pending against the 3 petitioner. In the circumstances, I direct that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Bettiah, West Champaran may release the Tata Victa vehicle in favour of petitioner subject to his furnishing an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Bettiah, West Champaran and after proper verification of the documents showing his ownership and subject to the final order passed in the confiscating proceedings, if any is pending or instituted bat a later stage. This application is thus allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )