In NDPS Cases, Trial Courts Have Discretion To Release Of Seized Vehicle In The Interim : Supreme Court

The Criminal Appeal, before the Apex Court, was filed challenging the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court whereby the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan said, “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 Cr.P.C. for the return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim.”

AOR Adeel Ahmed represented the Appellant while AOR Diksha Rai represented the Respondent.

The appellant herein had purchased a Truck for commercial purposes with the intent of plying the same. The Vehicle was purchased on monthly Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.1,00,020 and according to the appellant, it was his only source of income. One day, the Police checked the Vehicle coming from Dimapur side and found two identical soap boxes containing suspected heroin which was covered in black polythene, concealed inside the Tarpaulin and kept at the hood of the Vehicle. The main accused namely, Md. Dimpul was arrested by the Police Officer and the said suspected substance was confirmed to be 24.8 gms. of heroin.

It was the case of the appellant that the accused boarded the Vehicle from Manipur as stated by the driver of the Vehicle and neither the appellant (owner of the truck) nor his driver was aware that the said accused- Dimpul was in possession of the said substance and was carrying the same. Moreover, the driver and helper had been cited as witnesses in the case as according to the appellant they were not involved in the offence.

It was further submitted that the Vehicle has been lying unattended at the Police station campus and is exposed to sun and rain thereby rendering it to natural wear and tear and deterioration. Reliance was also placed upon Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. to seek release of the Vehicle.

The Bench was of the view that different Courts have taken divergent views with regard to interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS cases.On a perusal of the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Bench observed 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.

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

“This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case”, the Bench said.

The Court reiterated that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. It further clarified that 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 also described the four scenarios where the seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances can take place. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance.

As per the Bench, in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, 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.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that in the chargesheet, neither the owner of the Vehicle nor the driver had been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant had been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation had not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/ substances with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not taken all reasonable precautions against such use. Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on superdari.

Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Sainaba vs. State of Kerala and Another(2022) where the vehicle in question was released. The Bench also noted hat the vehicle would be wasted if not released during trial and 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).

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the Trial Court to release the Vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which would be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the appellant has also been asked to not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till the conclusion of the trial.

Cause Title: Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 32)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Adeel Ahmed, Advocates Raja Chatterjee, Sabrish Ahmed, Ayushi Arora, Anupama Gupta, Riya Dutta, Piyush Sachdev

Respondent: AOR Diksha Rai, Advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Purvat Wali

Click here to read/download Judgement