ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner, a registered owner of vehicle Bolero Camper bearing No. RJ-05-UA-0193, has ventilated his grievance against the impugned judgment dated 19th of May, 2014 rendered by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court, while convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), has ordered confiscation of the said vehicle allegedly carrying contraband. While handing down sentence to the accused persons, the learned trial Court has also recalled its earlier order dated 22nd of July, 2011, whereby the vehicle was released on Supardginama under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment of learned trial Court both the accused persons preferred separate appeals before this Court, which were registered as S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.356/2015 and 443/2014 respectively and, in both the appeals, conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act is set aside. Learned counsel, therefore, in that background, submits that now there remains no plausible reason for confiscation of the vehicle allegedly carrying contraband and its subsequent auction. Relying on affidavit of the petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that so far the vehicle has not been put to auction. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajpurohit, has opposed the prayer, in general, while admitting the fact that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court has been set aside by this Court vis-a-vis both the accused persons. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record as well as the judgment passed by this Court in aforesaid criminal appeals. 5. There remains no quarrel that, in view of launching of prosecution against the main accused persons for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question was seized and finally, on their conviction, confiscation of the vehicle is ordered by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has set out a case that the said vehicle was carrying contraband and in commission of offence, main accused persons were involved. Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides procedure in making confiscations. 6. The prosecution has set out a case that the said vehicle was carrying contraband and in commission of offence, main accused persons were involved. Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides procedure in making confiscations. 6. Learned trial Court, while determining culpability of the accused persons has, therefore, resorted to Section 63 of the NDPS Act for ordering confiscation of the vehicle in question. However, in view of the fact that conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been set at naught by this Court, in my considered opinion, now it is not worthwhile to maintain the order for confiscation of vehicle in question. 7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the appeals of the accused-persons has held :- "In view of the above shortcomings, evidently, the prosecution failed to prove that the samples of the seized contraband remained in the selfsame condition from time of seizure till they reached the FSL. As a consequence of the above discussion, the judgment rendered by the trial Court convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act is contrary to facts as well as law and, cannot be sustained. The appellants thus deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The judgment dated 19.5.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Bhilwara is hereby set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charge. They are in custody. They shall be at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case." 8. Since there is no culpability of the main accused-persons for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, obviously, it is not desirable to maintain order of confiscation for vehicle in question and its subsequent auction. 9. True, it is that vehicle has been confiscated but so far the same has not been auctioned is yet another mitigating factor, which has persuaded this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, to the extent of confiscation of the vehicle in question, in view of acquittal main accused persons, is set aside and the vehicle is ordered to be released forthwith.