JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 454 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 150/2018 wherein, the Special Court has acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act while directing to confiscate the vehicle, i.e. Tata Safari bearing Registration No. UP-85-BF-0022. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 29.09.2018, police officials of Police Station: Borai has seized total 32 Kg contraband Ganja from the possession of the appellant along with vehicle namely Tata Safari bearing Registration No. UP-85-BF-0022. On the basis of seized articles, offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) were registered against the present appellant. After considering the evidence and material available on record, the learned Special Court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act, but directed to confiscate the said vehicle. Hence, the instant appeal is filed by the appellant for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. 3. During course of trial, co-accused Gaurav Kumar has died and case against him was closed, which was reflected from the order sheet dated 05.10.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle and the order passed by learned Trial Court directing confiscation of the vehicle is bad in law. Material witnesses were declared hostile and thus have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court regarding confiscation of the vehicle may be set aside and the appellant be granted interim custody of the vehicle. He placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Tikeshwar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh dated 11.12.2020 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1374 of 2020. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that in view of the provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question is not liable to be given to the appellant. 6. M.P. No. 1374 of 2020. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that in view of the provisions contained in Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the vehicle in question is not liable to be given to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Section 60 of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of the vehicle seized in commission of the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which states as under: “60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation: (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances] lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances] which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and there receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substances] materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found and the other contents, if any of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation. (3) 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) 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.” 8. It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the owner of the said vehicle in question. It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the owner of the said vehicle in question. From perusal of Ex.P-37, it is clear that Station In-charge of Police Station: Borai has sought information regarding the vehicle from the Transport Officer, Mathura wherein, he has informed that the vehicle in question i.e. Tata Safari is registered in the name of the appellant Mohan Kumar. 9. The learned Trial Court in the judgment has acquitted the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act and held in Para 43 as under: ^^Ádj.k esa tIr'kqnk lQkjh okgu Øekad ;wŒihŒ@85@chŒ,QŒ@0022 tIr fd;k x;k Fkk ftldh vkjŒlhŒ dh QksVksÁfr Ádj.k esa lyXu gSA gkykafd mDr okgu vfHk;qDr eksgu dqekj ds ij gS] ijarq ;g Li”V gS fd bl Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDr dks iqfyl }kjk mfpr :i ls dk;Zokgh ugha fd;s tkus ,oa /kkjk 42 o 57 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV dk ikyu ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k nks”keqDr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd Ádj.k esa ;g lk{; vk;k gS fd eknd inkFkZ xkatk tIr'kqnk lQkjh okgu Øekad ;wŒihŒ@85@chŒ,QŒ@0022 ls cjken gqvk FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr dks nks”keqDr fd;s tkus ds ckn Hkh tIr'kqnk lQkjh okgu Øekad ;wŒihŒ@85@chŒ,QŒ@0022 dks jktlkr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% vihy vof/k i'pkr tIr'kqnk lQkjh okgu dzekad ;wŒihŒ@85@chŒ,QŒ@0022 dks jktlkr fd;k tkosA** 10. A detailed procedure for making confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act has been provided in Section 63 of the NDPS Act which provides as under: “63. Procedure in making confiscations: (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 [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.” 11. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that if the accused has been acquitted even though as per above provision, the vehicle may be confiscated. The learned Trial Court in Para 43 has categorically held that provisions as contained in Sections 42 and 57 have not been complied with, therefore, it appears that the accused is acquitted on technical ground. Though the accused has been acquitted, but the vehicle in question was used for unlawful Act i.e. transportation of illicit contraband Ganja. 12. As per Ex.P-28, a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the appellant asking about the legal papers for transporting the Ganja. In reply to the aforesaid notice, it was noted by the appellant in the notice itself that they did not have any valid document to sell and transport the contraband Ganja. 13. 12. As per Ex.P-28, a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the appellant asking about the legal papers for transporting the Ganja. In reply to the aforesaid notice, it was noted by the appellant in the notice itself that they did not have any valid document to sell and transport the contraband Ganja. 13. As per the statement given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. it has been stated by the appellant that he is innocent, on 28.09.2018 when he was proceeding to Sihava for some work then the police personnel of Police Station Borai, stopped his vehicle and asked for papers with respect to vehicle and license, thereafter, the license was shown through his mobile whereupon the police personnel got annoyed, due to which some altercation took place between them, thereafter the police personnel pressurized the appellant and obtained his signature on a white paper after involving the appellant in the false case. In an application filed under Section 439 of IPC for grant of regular bail, it has been stated by the appellant that he along with his friends proceeded to Sihava for wandering upon which the police personnel of Police Station Borai stopped the vehicle and asked for documents. In an application filed under Section 451 of IPC, the appellant stated that on 28.09.2018 when he was proceeding to Jeypore (Odisha) to meet one of his acquaintances, then at about 4 pm to 5 pm at Borai's Forest Junction, forest officials of Borai stopped the vehicle and inspected the vehicle, but they did not seize any type of contraband substance. 14. A bare perusal of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the pleadings made in the said applications submitted by the appellant under Sections 439 and 451 of IPC, it would reveal that the appellant is changing his version frequently and they are not consistent with each other. In that view of the matter, it can safely be inferred that the appellant was present in his vehicle at the time when the police personnel of Borai stopped him. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly given its finding regarding confiscation of the vehicle. 15. In that view of the matter, it can safely be inferred that the appellant was present in his vehicle at the time when the police personnel of Borai stopped him. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly given its finding regarding confiscation of the vehicle. 15. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgments being distinguishable on facts are of no help to the appellant. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision contained in Section 63 (1) of NDPS Act, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order of confiscation of vehicle, which does not require any interference. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.