- (1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 26-3- 2001 passed by Sri G. S Chandel, Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4 Azamgarh in case Crime No. 458 of 2000, under Section 8/20 N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. Jcanpur district Azam-garh rejecting the application of the ap plicant for interim custody of the motor cycle bearing registration No. U. P. 50-D/4027. It appears that on 30-12-2000 the Inspector Incharge, P. S. Jeanpur along with police party was passing through vil lage Maraikhas. The police observed a Hero Honda motor-cycle carrying three persons. The above motor-cycle was stopped. The person driving the motor cycle and setting on it tried to ran away but were apprehended at 4. 45 p. m. Three per sons namely, Firoz Haider, Nand Lal and Santosh Yadav were apprehended. On personal search of above persons Santosh Yadav was found in possession of 1 kg. 250 gm illicit Ganja and the other two persons were found in possession of illicit arms. On the basis of above recovery a case under Section 8/20 N. D. P. S. Act was registered against the Feroz Haider and others. During pendency of the investigation the applicant Adanan Ahsan moved an ap plication for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that he was registered owner of the same and had given toferoz Ahsan. The trial Court rejected the above application on the ground that under Sec tion 60 (3) N. D. P. S. Act the person claim ing bona fide had not only to prove his innocent but also prove that he has taken all reasonable precautions. against wrong ful user of the vehicle.
(3.) SECTION 63 of N. D. P. S. Act provides procedure for making confiscation of the vehicle at the time of conviction, acquittal or discharge (final disposal of the case) of the case. Admittedly the case is still pend ing and it has not yet been decided. Whether the vehicle is liable to confisca tion or not shall be decided by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. At present the applicant has moved application for interim custody. In case interim custody is allowed proceeding of confiscation which will take place at appropriate stage will not be affected. In this way, the trial Court has not decided the application properly and the case be sent back to the Court concerned for deciding it afresh in the light of observations made above. The revision is allowed and order dated 26-3-2001 is quashed. The case is sent back to Court concerned to decide the application of the applicant in the light of observations made above at an early date. Revision allowed. .;