No specific bar on releasing seized vehicle under NDPS Act: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that there is no specific bar or restriction under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting banned substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged.

"Further, even where the court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation," the bench said.

However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if its owner can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.

"In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case," the bench said.

Consequently, the trial court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case, the bench added.

The court rendered its judgment on a plea by Bishwajit Dey, whose truck was seized with a man who boarded the vehicle allegedly carrying heroin in Manipur on April 10, 2023.

The appellant contended his truck, bought for commercial purpose for which he paid monthly installment of over Rs one lakh, was lying unattended at the Police station campus, being exposed to sun and rain thereby rendering it to natural wear and tear and deterioration.

The Assam government counsel opposed the plea, saying seized vehicle is a material evidence that directly links the accused to the commission of the offence, particularly since it was used as a means to transport and conceal the contraband substance. She stated that during the course of the trial, the seized vehicle will be required for inspection, demonstration or verification to substantiate the prosecution’s case and to establish the manner in which the offence was committed.

The counsel also contended that the use of the vehicle for the same purpose can't be ruled out, if released, which would undermine efforts to control illegal activities.

Rejecting the arguments, the bench said, "If the respondent-State’s interpretation is accepted, then in a case where an accused is arrested carrying heroin in a private plane or a private bus or a private ship without the knowledge and consent of the management and staff of the private plan or bus or ship, the plane/bus/ship would have to be seized till the trial is over!"

The bench said though the risk of misuse by the accused or third party of the same plane or bus or ship cannot be ruled out, the courts do not take coercive action on the basis of fear or suspicion or hypothetical situation.

"Undoubtedly, the vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the vehicle," the bench said.

The court said where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the court on the date of the release, if the court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated.

In the case, the bench said if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose.

"This court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce," the bench said.

On the contrary, the court said, "If the vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods).

The bench allowed the appeal against the Gauhati High Court's January 23, 2024 judgment, with directions to the trial court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle.

The court directed the appellant not to sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he would surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed.