The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that the Trial Court has to pass an order to confiscate the vehicle under the NDPS Act only when the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt after the completion of the trial.

The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Case assailing the order of the Special Judge dismissing a petition filed for interim custody of the vehicle in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held, “It is only when the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt after completion of the trial, then the trial Court has to pass an order to confiscate the said vehicle”.

Advocate Arrabolu Sai Naveen represented the Petitioner while the Public Prosecutor represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle, which was seized in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He filed a petition before the Trial Court seeking interim custody of the said vehicle but the same was dismissed on the ground that the vehicle that was used for carrying the narcotic drug would be confiscated to the State ultimately if the offence is proved. It was also held that the petitioner herein had not established that he is the bona fide purchaser of the vehicle and he did not use the vehicle for illegal purposes.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, termed the grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the petition filed for interim custody of the vehicle as ex facie erroneous. “Simply because the vehicle that was used for carrying the contraband is to be confiscated in case the offence is proved, the request of the petitioner to give interim custody of the said vehicle cannot be denied or rejected on the said ground”, it said.

“Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not the accused in the present crime. Therefore, if the vehicle is left unused either in the Police Station or in the premises of the Court till the trial of the case is completed, there is every likelihood of vehicle being damaged”, the Court added.

It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle as a registration certificate had been filed. The Bench further noted that the petitioner is not the accused and the vehicle could be damaged if it is left unused till the trial of the case is completed. Thus, allowing the Revision, the Bench set aside the order of the Trial Court and directed to give interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner on his executing a self-bond and an undertaking.

Cause Title: Kolli Srinivas Reddy v. The State of AP (Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No.1329 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Arrabolu Sai Naveen

Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice K. Sreenivasa ReddyNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1985

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.