IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.42283 OF 2009 THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MD. SHAMSHAD ALAM, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, PATNA VERSUS AFZAL AHMAD, 132/372, BAPUR PURWA, KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. SANJAY SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :- MR. KAMESHWAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE MR. MD. ASLAM ANSARI, ADVOCATE ********** 3 17/05/2010 This application has been filed on behalf of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna challenging the order dated 13.08.2009 by which the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has released the truck which was allegedly carrying 56 packets of CHARAS weighing 54 kgs. The facts are that the Opposite Party Afzal Ahmad in the owner of the TATA Truck bearing registration no. UP 78BT/3149. The truck was carrying a consignment of Potatoes/onions from Kanpur to Gopalganj. After delivery of the said item, the truck was returning with certain other consignment. It is the case of the petitioner that the consignment was not at the behest of the Opposite Party. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the proposition and submits that the very fact that the truck belongs to the Opposite Party would indicate that the Opposite Party No. 1 would be liable for the acts done by the driver. The factual aspect is that the Opposite Party has not been made accused in 2 this case. According to the Counsel for the Opposite Party, the driver has disclosed the fact that he was taking the said consignment from Gopalganj on his own, without the permission or consent of the owner of the truck. Be that as it may, the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has released the truck in question, after ordering for furnishing the bond of Rs. two lacs with two sureties of the like amount each and with a condition that the Opposite Party will produce the truck as and when required by the Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the truck in question is liable to be confiscated in view of Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act states about the confiscation proceeding. It reads as follows:- “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 3 who committed the offence in connection there with 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 of 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. From the plain reading of Section 63 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, it is apparent that it speaks that “after the trial has been conducted and does not concerns of confiscation at the pre trial stage” much less in a case where the persons whose property is to seized is not accused for offences which led to the seizure of the truck. The release of article depends upon the fact of a particular case. In view of the stringent conditions put by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur and the fact that the petitioner is not even an accused in this case, I see 4 no reason to interfere with the order of release specially as there is an undertaking by the Opposite Party that he will produce the truck in question as and when wanted. This application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)