Confiscation of vehicle under NDPS law defeated interim custody claim where ownership and possession facts showed no basis for release.

A vehicle used to transport a commercial quantity of poppy straw was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act unless the owner could show that the use occurred without knowledge or connivance and despite reasonable precautions. The owner's own statement that the vehicle had been sold under an agreement for sale, together with the fact that the person in possession at the relevant time was the purchaser and not the petitioner, defeated the claim for interim custody. On those facts, the vehicle was not releasable on superdari and the request for interim custody was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle seized while carrying a commercial quantity of poppy straw.

Analysis: The vehicle had been used as a conveyance for transporting a large quantity of narcotic substance, attracting the confiscatory consequence under Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 unless the owner shows that the use was without knowledge or connivance and despite reasonable precautions. The petitioner's own stand before the investigating agency that the vehicle had been sold under an agreement for sale, coupled with the fact that the person in possession at the relevant time was not the petitioner but the purchaser, negatived the petitioner's claim for interim custody. In such circumstances, the vehicle remained liable to confiscation and could not be released on superdari.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interim custody of the vehicle and the request was rejected.

---