JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 16.02.2018, Annexure-4 to this petition. 2. The petitioner herein filed a special petition for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AT-0341 seized in connection with Khowai P.S. Case No.2017/KHW/128 under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [the NDPS Act in short]. In the complaint, it has been alleged that having laid the ambush, the Coy Commander, 48 BN. BSF, had noticed that two persons were approaching towards the ambush. When those persons were challenge, they tried to escape but with great efforts, they were over-powered. On search, from the vehicle 18 bags of cannabis were found and those narcotic substances were seized. The vehicle was also seized. The Special Judge, West Tripura, Khowai by the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 has observed that ‘thus, it is clear from the provisions of NDPS Act that the vehicle, which is used for transporting the contraband is to be seized by the police for the purpose of recovery of contraband and further as per provisions of section 60(3) NDPS Act, the vehicle used for transportation of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is liable to be confiscated, hence cannot be released.’ Section 60(3) of the NDPS act provides that: “(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance 2[or controlled substance], or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.” Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides the procedure relating to confiscation. For purpose of reference, the relevant statutory provisions are extracted hereunder: “(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly. (2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly. Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim: Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, 1[controlled substance,] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.” In connection with the said case, the vehicle was seized and the Special Judge, West Tripura, Khowai has rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. Hence, the said order dated 16.02.2018 has been challenged in this criminal petition. 3. The petitioner claimed that he is the registered owner of the said Pickup van. On 17.12.2017 his vehicle was detained by the BSF in connection with the said case. According to the petitioner, owner of the said vehicle, he was not aware of carrying any illegal goods by his vehicle and the petitioner always restricted the driver not to carry any illegal goods by his vehicle. Despite that, the said occurrence had taken place. The Special Judge without analyzing the records submitted by the petitioner herein, had passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2018. 4. Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act provides for disposal of the seized narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and the conveyance. It has been alleged that the contraband psychotropic substance was being carried by the said vehicle of the petitioner and for that reason, the said vehicle was seized. In the due course, the owner was apprised of such seizure. 5. Mr. Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act provides for disposal of the seized narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and the conveyance. It has been alleged that the contraband psychotropic substance was being carried by the said vehicle of the petitioner and for that reason, the said vehicle was seized. In the due course, the owner was apprised of such seizure. 5. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if the vehicle is kept in the premise which is totally uncovered, the vehicle would severely be damaged and its value would be depreciated. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 where the apex court has observed as under: “1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchanama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 6. The present case, however is not under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. but some of the principles as laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat can be borrowed for purpose of applying the same. The law as laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat has been restated in General Insurance Council and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 786 . In General Insurance Council (supra) the apex court has observed that: “It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalized so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road.” The aforesaid directions as referred in General Insurance Council (supra) encompass the disposal of the seized vehicle. In the case in hand, the Special Judge did not allow the vehicle to be released on furnishing adequate security and conditions. 7. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has categorically contended that the owner of the vehicle, the petitioner herein, did not have any knowledge that the said vehicle would be used, as alleged, for carrying narcotic substances. The petitioner has also raised question about the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 16.01.2015. According to the petitioner, the Central Government cannot decide all these issues in a particular manner. The said notification dated 16.01.2015 has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. What Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the Central Government lacks in competence to issue such notification can hardly be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 where it has been clearly stipulated that by notification published in the Official Gazette, the Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. Initially, the Central Government by the standing order No.1-89 dated 13.06.1989 in exercise of power conferred by Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act specified the drugs for disposal having regard to hazardous nature, vulnerability to threat substitution and constraints of proper storage space. Initially, the Central Government by the standing order No.1-89 dated 13.06.1989 in exercise of power conferred by Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act specified the drugs for disposal having regard to hazardous nature, vulnerability to threat substitution and constraints of proper storage space. In the said notification apart from declaring the drugs meant for disposal general procedure for sampling and storage, receipt of drugs in godown and procedure thereof, action to be taken by the police and other empowered officers for pre-trial disposal, the functions of the Drug Disposal Committee etc. Subsequently, the said standing order No.1-89 dated 13.06.1989 were substantially suppressed by the Central Government and provision has been made for disposal of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the pre-trial stage by the notification dated 10.05.2007 [G.S.R.339(E)]. By the notification dated 16.01.2015 issued under Section 52A of the NDPS Act the notification dated 10.05.2007 has been partly modified and suppressed ‘expect as respects things done or omitted to be done before such suppression, the Central Government, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, and constraints of proper storage space, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, hereby specifies the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of, the officers who shall dispose them of and the manner of their disposal.’ By the said notification dated 16.01.2015 the manner of disposal has been categorically provided. For purpose of reference, the said mode as described in the notification dated 16.01.2015 has been extracted in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) as reproduced herein. By the said notification the Central Government has provided that after preparation of the inventory of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyance as per Annexure-1 to the said notification dated 16.01.2015 the respective officer shall apply to any Magistrate under Section 52A of the said Act as per Annexure-2 to the notification dated 16.01.2015 within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of seized narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances. Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) has approved this procedure. 8. Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) has approved this procedure. 8. It is apparent from the order dated 16.01.2015 that the apex court in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) has dealt with disposal mechanism in respect of conveyance, which has been allegedly carried narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in violation of law. The direction which is relevant for the present case is reproduced below: “Cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of trial court, appellate court or before the Supreme Court: In such cases the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do so under Notification dated 16th January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time.” 9. Substantively, directions in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra) are concerned with the storage and disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, in Para-31.2 of the said decision in respect of storage, the reference has been made to conveyance as well. Similarly, in the notification dated 16.01.2015 the provision has been made for disposal of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, controlled substances or the conveyances under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Clause 4 of the said notification provides as under: “4. Manner of disposal – (1) Where any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance or conveyance has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53 of the said Act or if it is seized by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances as per Annexure 1 to this notification and apply to any Magistrate under sub-section 9(2) of section 52A of the said Act as per Annexure 2 to this notification within thirty days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report of seized narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances. (2) After the Magistrate allows the application under sub-section (3) of section 52A of the said Act, the officer mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall preserve the certified inventory, photographs and samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate as primary evidence for the case and submit details of the seized items to the Chairman of the Drug Disposal Committee for a decision by the Committee on the disposal, and the aforesaid officer shall send a copy of the details along with the items seized to the officer-in-charge of the godown.” 10. The question, therefore, emerges is that whether the Magistrate under sub Section 52A (2) has any authority to direct disposal? Bare reading of the said provision would show no such direct authority has given to the Magistrate. According to the said notification dated 16.01.2015 power of the Drug Disposal Committee has been authorized to dispose [see para-7] but no reference in respect of the disposal of the conveyance is available except to include the word ‘conveyance’. That perhaps be the reason why the special court has refused to release the vehicle. But the authority can be derived if Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act are read for this purpose. 11. Let us further examine whether the said provision is self- contained code. From the reading of the entire notification dated 16.01.2015, it would appear that the Drug Disposal Committee has no other power except to act in the mode as prescribed for disposal, as provided in Para-9(5) (e). The following mode has been provided: “(e) seized conveyances shall be sold off by way of tender or auction as determined by the Drug Disposal Committee.” Such disposal in terms of the Para-9(5)(e) only be possible after the confiscation proceeding is complete. The following mode has been provided: “(e) seized conveyances shall be sold off by way of tender or auction as determined by the Drug Disposal Committee.” Such disposal in terms of the Para-9(5)(e) only be possible after the confiscation proceeding is complete. Without confiscation, the disposal of the seized conveyance within the scheme of the NDPS Act, 1985 cannot be visualized and as such, the ancillary question that emerges is that whether the said notification has provided a mechanism for disposal without confiscation inasmuch as Section 60(3) has clearly provided that ‘any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance or any article liable to confiscation under sub Section (1) or sub Section (2) of Section 60 shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner of the animal or the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent if any and the person in charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.” 12. It is thus apparent that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act has made provision for protecting the interest of an innocent owner before confiscating his vehicle. The procedure of confiscation has been made under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act which provides that in the trial of offences under the NDPS Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged the Special Court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this act is liable to confiscation under Sections 60, 61 or 62 and if it decides that that the seized articles or things are liable to be confiscated it may order confiscation accordingly. The procedure for confiscation has been further elaborated under sub Section 2 of Section 63 of the NDPS Act. A substantive reading of Section 63 read with Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act would provide that until the trial is over the confiscation proceeding cannot be initiated. However, exception has been curved out in proviso-es to sub Section 2 of Section 63 of the NDPS Act. A substantive reading of Section 63 read with Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act would provide that until the trial is over the confiscation proceeding cannot be initiated. However, exception has been curved out in proviso-es to sub Section 2 of Section 63 of the NDPS Act. The first proviso provides that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall made be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim. The second proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold. 13. A conjoint reading of proviso-es as referred above would certainly allow a prudent person to infer that immediate disposal would mean the disposal after expiry of one month and that would apply to articles or things other than the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance, controlled substances, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant which are liable to speedy and natural decay. If the court is of the opinion that sale would be beneficial for its owner it may any time direct it to be sold. In that event the Drug Disposal Committee shall make all arrangements for sale of those things or articles. So far the conveyance [of which ownership has been claimed] is concerned, its involvement in carrying out the offence has to be proved in the trial and on such proof, the proceeding for confiscation may ensue in terms of Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act and the confiscation only be made after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who has any right or claim over the said conveyance. Such confiscation can be done only after the trial is complete and the Special Court decides for confiscation as the court is to see that the vehicle or conveyance which was used for commission of offence under the NDPS Act is not made available to the person or persons who indulged in the blameworthy act. If the owner of the vehicle is not an accused in that case, a separate and independent proceeding has to be drawn for confiscation in terms of the express provisions in Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act to protect an innocent owner before confiscating his vehicle or conveyance. Thus, there is a right to the owner who claimed within 30[thirty] days from the day of seizure, his title over the vehicle to have interim custody of the said vehicle subject to the adequate security till completion of the trial. In absence of any contrary provision in Union of India vs. Mohanlal (supra), this Court is of the view that the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AT-0341 as seized in connection with Khowai P.S. Case No. No.2017/KHW/128 may be released to its registered owner till completion of the trial. The petitioner has claimed his ownership over the said vehicle within 30[thirty] days from the day of seizure. It is made absolutely clear that on taking zimma, the registered owner shall keep the vehicle in good condition and shall not transfer any right including the right of ownership or by forging agreement in respect of use of the vehicle. Where no one claims the ownership of the vehicle within the stipulated time of 30[thirty] days, the court may direct the Drug Disposal Committee for disposal by sale. 14. Having observed thus, it is directed that the said vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-AT-0341 only be released to its registered owner on furnishing of the bail bond of Rs.4,00,000/- supported by one surety of the like amount and on realizing a specific undertaking from the surety that if the vehicle is not produced on asking or there is no participation in the confiscation proceeding by the registered owner, the surety shall be liable to tender the said amount to the court. As a measure of abundant caution, the special court shall determine whether the petitioner is the registered owner or not. As a measure of abundant caution, the special court shall determine whether the petitioner is the registered owner or not. If it is found that the petitioner is the registered owner, the vehicle be released to him on such terms and conditions as stated above. In the result, this petitions stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.