JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur whereby Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the motor-cycle Registration No. RJ14-ZH-2190 on sapurdagi and has passed an order to initiate confiscation proceedings in relation to the aforesaid vehicle. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 63 of the NDPS Act, confiscation proceedings can be initiated only after conclusion of the trial. 3. It is contended that trial has not concluded. Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and has further erred in directing that confiscation proceedings be initiated. 4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order as also Section 63 of the NDPS Act. 5. A comprehensive reading of Section 63 of the NDPS Act more particularly sub-sec. (2) and the proviso, makes it clear that the Court can initiate the proceedings of confiscation after the expiry of one month from the dater of seizure. It is not the requirement of law that the confiscation proceedings can be initiated only after the conclusion of trial. As per sub-sec. (2) of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, even when the person who committed the offence, is not known, Court may order for confiscation of the proceedings. 6. Apex Court in "Karnataka State vs. K. Krishnan 2000 Criminal Law General 3971 (S.C)" has held that in NDPS Act Cases, vehicle should not be given on interim sapurdagi. There is no error in the order so as to invoke the inherent powers. 7. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.