1 2025:CGHC:54404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 560 of 2024 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Kurre S/o Balram Kurre, Aged About 35 Years R/o Indiranagar, Jamnipali, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District Korba (Cg) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kotwali, District- Korba (Cg) ----Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The present appeal is against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Korba District Korba in MJC (Criminal) Case No. 46/2023, whereby the vehicle alleged to be used in the o8ence has been ordered to be con9scated, even after the acquittal of the accused persons namely Narendra Kumar Bhariya alias Chhotu and Komal Rathor alias Chhotu from the charges under Section 22 C of NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2020 when the vehicle bearing registration number CG/12/AN/2026 was intercepted and it was searched, total of 1816 capsule pyeevon spas plus capsule Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.11 11:24:16 +0530 2 weighing 1 kilogram 204 grams and 984 miligram Tramadol Spasmo Proxyvon was recovered, thereafter, after the investigation, charge-sheet was 9led under Section 22 (c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After the entire trial, the appellant Narendra Kumar Bhariya alias Chhotu and Komal Rathor alias Chhotu were acquitted of the charges by order dated 23.12.2023 (Annexure A-2). The Court in the said order had further directed for con9scation of the vehicle wherein the alleged Psychotropic Substances was transported. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not accused in the special case under NDPS Act No. 11/2020. Since the vehicle belongs to the appellant and the appellant was not having any knowledge of his vehicle being used in said crime and further the accused persons had borrowed his vehicle to travel to their village and just as help appellant herein gave his bike, therefore the con9scation of vehicle in the light of Section 60(3) NDPS Act cannot be done. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the acquittal order having been passed in favour of the accused persons and as per the prosecution, the vehicle was seized from the possession of the present appellant and since the conviction of the accused persons has not been a8ected, therefore, he is entitled to get back his vehicle as without any rhyme or reason the order for con9scation cannot be passed. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer. 6. Perused the order dated 23.12.2023. Reading of the order would 3 show that the appellant was not accused in the aforesaid case and the trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act and further ordered for con9scation of the vehicle despite the acquittal of the accused persons. 7. Section 60 sub-section (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 reads that any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be liable for con9scation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge of the owner. In the instant case, the seizure of the vehicle was made from the joint possession of the accused persons. The document which is 9led as Annexure A-3 shows that the said vehicle was registered in the name of Kamlesh Kumar Kurre i.e. the present appellant. The trial Court in the instant case further recorded the fact that the prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the goods so seized were Psychotropic Substances. 8. Section 452 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks !t for the disposal, by destruction, con!scation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any 4 o&ence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any o&ence. (2) An order may be made under sub- section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub- section (1) is modi!ed or set aside on appeal or revision.(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub- section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub- section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an o&ence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.” 9. In the instant case, it appears that the vehicle was seized from the accused persons as per Annexure A-2, the vehicle prima facie appears to be in the name of the appellant. Once the prosecution has failed to conduct the proper investigation in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act and the goods which were seized were not Psychotropic Substances, the entire charges under the NDPS Act automatically diluted and the parties are relegated back to their 5 original position of innocence. When the court has come to 9nding that the prosecution has failed to prove that goods which were seized were narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then provisions of Section 60 sub-section (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would not be applicable as the very sub stratum of applicability of Section 60 sub-section (3) has been taken away by the acquittal order. 10.Consequently, order of con9scation passed by the learned court below by its order dated 27.02.2024 is liable to be set aside. Appellant is owner of the vehicle CG/12/AN/2026 is entitled to get back possession of the vehicle and the vehicle of the appellant be released forthwith. 11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti