Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 413 (JK)

Union of India v. Mohd. Ashraf Khan

2020-08-21

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2020
ORDER The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu directing the release of vehicle No. JK02AA 2000 in favour of the registered owner of the vehicle. 2. The brief facts are that the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AA 2000 was seized by the Incharge, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Unit Sainik Colony, Jammu in connection with offence under section 8, 21, 25, 27-A, 29, 60 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) as the heroine of commercial quantity was recovered from the said vehicle from 30/31 of August, 2018. The respondent had laid a motion for release of the vehicle mentioned above before the trial court and the same was contested by the petitioner herein but the learned trial court vide order dated 25.04.2019 released the same in favour of the registered owner of the vehicle. The present revision has been filed primarily and inter alia on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the heinous offence and same could not be released pending trial of the case. 3. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI has vehemently argued that as the vehicle has been involved in a heinous offence, as such, the same could not be released pending trial of the case and the vehicle was liable for confiscation. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. This is an admitted fact that the vehicle has been seized under the NDPS Act. Section 63 of the NDPS Act, provides confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of offence under the NDPS Act when the owner is unable to prove that the vehicle is used without his knowledge or connivance or knowledge and connivance of his agent incharge of the vehicle. The NDPS Act nowhere bars the temporary release of the vehicle seized under the Act during the enquiry or trial. More so, the seizure of the vehicle in heinous offence can hardly be a ground for its retention with the seizing authority and if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the custody of the seizing authority then in all probability the vehicle would become unroadworthy, in view of the fact that it may take quite a long time for conclusion of the trial. If after trial, the trial court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle is required to be confiscated, then the court may proceed ahead as per mandate of section 63 of the NDPS Act. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the learned trial court and I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order impugned as the same has been passed well within the domain of the law. The revision petition is found to be without any merit, as such, the same is dismissed.