Supreme Court: Special Courts Can Entertain Application For Interim Custody Or Release Of Seized Conveyance In NDPS Cases
The Supreme Court observed that the power to determine whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and not in any administrative or executive authority such as the Drug Disposal Committee.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the Special Courts cannot be divested of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance in NDPS cases.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by which the prayer for interim custody of lorry was rejected.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… we have no hesitation in holding that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules.”
The Bench added that any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.
AOR A. Venayagam Balan represented the Appellant, while AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant was the owner of a vehicle in question which was lawfully hired for transporting iron sheets. For this purpose, the vehicle was assigned to the accused persons. During the transit, the police officers intercepted and searched the vehicle, whereupon 1.5 kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath the driver’s seat and an additional 1.5 kilograms each was recovered from the personal possession of the other three accused, thereby bringing the total quantity of seized Ganja to 6 kilograms. All four accused persons were arrested and pursuant to the seizure, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The Appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the report.
Being aggrieved by the continued seizure of his vehicle, the Appellant moved an Application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) i.e., Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He sought interim release of the seized vehicle on supurdagi pending conclusion of trial. The Special Court dismissed the said Application on the ground that the vehicle seized under the provisions of the NDPS Act was not amenable to release on interim custody as the same was liable to confiscation under Section 63 of NDPS Act. The Appellant then approached the High Court and the Criminal Revision Case was rejected. Being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “A bare perusal of the rules, particularly the provisions pertaining to disposal of conveyances would make it clear that they are only supplemental to the scheme of disposal contemplated under the NDPS Act. The Rules being subordinate legislation, cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation, i.e., the NDPS Act.”
The Court reiterated that the Rules framed under a statute are intended to carry out the purposes of the Act and cannot travel beyond or be inconsistent with the parent legislation.
“… where the owner is able to demonstrate that the conveyance was used in violation of the NDPS Act without his knowledge or connivance and that due diligence was exercised, the vehicle cannot be confiscated merely because it was used in the commission of an offence under the said Act”, it said.
The Court emphasised that the power to determine whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and not in any administrative or executive authority such as the Drug Disposal Committee.
“… confiscation, being a measure resulting in deprivation of property, must conform to the basic tenets of natural justice and must be preceded with a prior hearing which would ensure that an innocent owner or a bona fide claimant, whose vehicle or container might have been misused without his knowledge or connivance, is not subjected to undue hardship and unjust deprivation of his property”, it enunciated.
The Court observed that confiscation or otherwise of a conveyance is to be determined finally, only upon conclusion of the trial, and until such adjudication, the ownership rights of the owner, who prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with the seized contraband, from claiming the seized vehicle cannot be extinguished.
“The Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or curtail the substantive rights and procedural safeguards envisaged under the parent legislation that is the NDPS Act”, it also added.
Conclusion
The Court further remarked that the application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula and each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances.
“… while the present case may technically correspond to the second scenario as enumerated in paragraph 29 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), the peculiar factual matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach. It would, therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and absence of any involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and directed the release of vehicle to the Appellant on such terms and conditions, which the Special Court may impose.
Cause Title- Denash v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1258)
