IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Jalees Ahmed …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal …………Respondents Dated: July 21, 2010 Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed to quash the order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the J.M. Kashipur and the judgment and order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar in Crl. Revision No.11/2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application before the J.M. Kashipur to release the Motorcycle No.UA-06-C-8991, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 18.1.2005 on the ground that the said motorcycle was the case property of Case Crime No.1624/2004 U/s 8/20 of the NDPS Act and the trial court accordingly rejected that application as it was having no jurisdiction of hearing. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision which too was rejected by the Sessions Judge, US Nagar vide judgment and order dated 14.3.2005 having no force in revision. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the court below wrongly rejected the application of the 2 petitioner. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that the petitioner moved the application before the trial court which was the case property of the NDPS Act. Since the trial court was having no jurisdiction to hear the same, hence it rightly rejected that application in view of the fact that only the Special Sessions Judge has the power to hear the cases of NDPS Act. Even the revisional court was also perfectly justified in affirming the order passed by the trial court and dismissing the revision. Accordingly, I do not find any force in this petition and the same is dismissed having no merits. However the petitioner is free to approach before the Special Judge, NDPS Act concerned for release of his vehicle in question. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 21, 2010 Rdang