The Orissa High Court has reiterated that seized property including vehicles in NDPS Cases should be preserved and safeguarded, not subjected to unnecessary deterioration and waste.

The Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge and seeking release of vehicle on appropriate terms and conditions.

The single bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed, "If left unattended indefinitely, the vehicle will inevitably suffer structural degradation, mechanical wear, and a substantial diminution in both its functional utility and economic value, rendering it unfit for future use. The law does not sanction the indefinite retention of property where its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice. Rather, the established legal principle dictates that seized property should be preserved and safeguarded, not subjected to unnecessary deterioration and waste."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Kumar Lenka while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Jyoshnamayee Sahoo.

Facts of the Case

The Vehicle in question was taken into custody while seizing off contraband and arresting accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Prosecution's case was that vehicle was directly involved in transporting contraband, making it an instrument of crime and under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, vehicles used for transporting narcotics cannot be released to the accused but must be disposed of following the prescribed legal procedure.

Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Mohanlal wherein it was held that vehicles used in narcotics transportation must be disposed of as per Section 52-A and cannot be released during trial was cited. It was thus averred that vehicle was used as a conveyance for illegal transport of narcotics, its release is barred by law. It was further averred that the only legal recourse is pre-trial disposal of the vehicle, as per government notification and court rulings.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner was not involved in the alleged offence, and merely because the vehicle was used by others for carrying contraband should not justify its forfeiture. It was contended that the reliance on Section 52-A(1) of the NDPS Act is misplaced because the Petitioner is not an accused and had no knowledge or intent to use the vehicle for an illegal act. Moreover, the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar on releasing vehicles, as courts have the discretion to impose conditions for their release.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the seized vehicle has remained in Police Custody for over a year, exposed to the relentless forces of nature, including sun, rain, and fluctuating weather conditions, resulting in its gradual deterioration and inevitable depreciation.

It was of the view that if a vehicle is left unattended indefinitely, it will inevitably suffer structural degradation, mechanical wear, and a substantial diminution in both its functional utility and economic value, rendering it unfit for future use. The Court also stressed that indefinite retention of property is not sanctioned in law and cited Supreme Court's ruling in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam.

The Petition was accordingly allowed and the release of the vehicle was ordered.

Cause Title: Rajesh Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha

Click here to read/ download Order


Orissa High CourtJustice SK Panigrahi

Sheetal Joon