SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A LIBERATED APPROACH MUST BE TAKEN IN ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF SEIZED VEHICLES IN THE CASES OF NDPS

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan passed a judgement dated 07.01.2025 in the matter of Bishwajit Dey V. The State of Assam Criminal Appeal No. 87 Of 2025 wherein the Bench held that while the criminal matter is being handled, there is no particular prohibition or restriction regarding the return of any seized vehicle used to transport narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act.

Facts

The case arose from the seizure of a truck (Vehicle) owned by the Appellant, Bishwajit Dey, in connection with the transportation of narcotics. The Vehicle was purchased on monthly equated instalment of Rs.1,00,020/- (One lakh and twenty rupees) and according to the Appellant, it was his only source of income. On 10.04.2023, the Vehicle was approaching from the Dimapur side, and was instructed to stop at the Naka Checkpoint. When the police inspected the truck, they discovered two similar soap boxes that contained heroin. These narcotics were stored in the vehicle’s hood, hidden inside the tarpaulin, and covered in black polythene. The main Accused namely, Md. Dimpul, was arrested by the Police Officer in this connection. After a field test, the said suspected substance was confirmed to be 24.8 grams of heroin. The Appellant contended that neither he nor the driver was aware of the contraband being transported in the vehicle as Md. Dimpul boarded the vehicle from Manipur. The Appellant stated that the driver and helper were also not involved in the offence and were also listed as witnesses.

That on 01.08.2023, Charge Sheet was filed before the Ld. Court of Special Judge, NDPS under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) (Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations).

Later, the Appellant sought the release of the Vehicle under Sections 451 (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) and 457 (Procedure by police upon seizure of property) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), arguing that its prolonged seizure would lead to significant deterioration, financial loss, and a hindrance to his livelihood. However, Additional Sessions Judge, in G.R. Case No.150/2023, vide Order dated 09.10.2023 dismissed the Application by the Appellant.

Subsequently, the Appellant moved to the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by filing a Writ Petition bearing no. Crl. Rev. No.P/483/2023 requesting for the same relief. However, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the Petition vide Order dated 23.01.2024. Therefore, the Appellant filed the present Appeal requesting the Hon’ble Supreme Court to release the vehicle seized by the Police.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the Appellant contended that the truck was the Appellant’s sole source of income, purchased through monthly installments. The Appellant had no knowledge of the illegal use of his vehicle. Moreover, prolonged detention of the vehicle would cause irreparable damage and economic loss to the Appellant.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the NDPS Act is a special law with stringent provisions for drug trafficking. The Act allows for confiscation of vehicles involved in drug transportation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge and connivance. Moreover, premature release of the vehicle might jeopardize evidence and potentially enable further misuse for trafficking.

Issues

1) Whether the Courts have the power to release the vehicle impounded in the cases of NDPS Act?

2) Whether the Appellant was using the truck for bonafide commercial purposes and was not aware of the narcotic substance being transported in his truck?

2) Whether the Trial and High Court erred in not granting the relief to the Appellant?

Decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Apex Court took consideration of all the contentions raised by the parties and also cited precedent of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no point of keeping the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period of time. Moreover, Magistrates can take appropriate bond/guarantee as well as security for the return of said vehicles.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the NDPS Act does not explicitly prohibit the interim release of vehicles. In the absence of specific provisions, general powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC can be invoked. Furthermore, the Apex Court observed that detention of vehicles in police custody leads to damage from exposure to weather and results in loss in value. Thus, the Hon’ble Bench was of the view that releasing the vehicle can be beneficial to the owner; provided appropriate safeguards are implemented to prevent its misuse.

The Apex Court also observed that in the present case, neither the owner nor the driver was implicated in the charge sheet. The contraband was found in possession of a third-party occupant, and there was no evidence suggesting the owner’s knowledge or connivance.

Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.01.2024 by Gauhati High Court. The Bench directed the Trial Court to release the vehicle to the Appellant on the following conditions:

1. A detailed inventory, videography, and photographs of the vehicle must be prepared and authenticated.
2. The Appellant must furnish a bond and undertake not to sell or transfer ownership until the trial concludes.
3. The vehicle must be surrendered or its value paid if so directed by the Trial Court upon the case’s conclusion.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law must be applied judiciously and not verbatim and mechanically. It highlights the need for Courts to avoid rigid interpretations that could lead to unjust outcomes, particularly in cases where innocent property owners are adversely affected by stringent laws like the NDPS Act. This decision establishes a liberated approach to the interim release of seized vehicles, balancing the goals of preventing drug trafficking with the need to protect the rights of innocent individuals and ensure economic utility.

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES