1 SBCr.Misc.Petition No.514/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 514/09 Rajkumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 13/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Jaswant Suthar for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 03.6.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar has been challenged whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-13-SC-4714 which was seized by the police with the allegation that it was used as a conveyance for transporting the illegal Narcotic Drugs, has been dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order impugned. In my view, the vehicle used as conveyance for transporting Narcotic Drugs in violation of the provisions of NDPS Act is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of the NDPS Act. In Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Others (1999) 5 SCC, 670, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 2 SBCr.Misc.Petition No.514/09 the very purpose for engrafting sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act is to have it as a deterrent measure to check the offences under the Act in question which have been found to be dangerous to the entire society. In the absence of any definition of “owner” in the NDPS Act, it would be reasonable to construe that the expression “owner” must be held to mean the “registered owner” of the vehicle in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Interpreting the expression “owner” in sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant therein cannot be permitted to urge that the order for confiscation is bad as he had no knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was used for carrying any narcotic substances. Keeping in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, in my view, the court below was justified in declining to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner during pendency of the criminal case. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious injustice or would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 3 SBCr.Misc.Petition No.514/09 S.B.Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 708/09 In S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 514/2009 Date of Order : 13/04/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Jaswant Suthar for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp