Section 452 Cr.PC- No Bar Under NDPS Act For Interim Release Of Seized Vehicle, Extremely Unfair To Direct Owner Not To Sell Vehicle: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to release the vehicle of an advocate seized in an NDPS case upon payment of a bond, while the trial was still pending.
The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Court to release the vehicle of an Advocate in an NDPS Act case and further clarified that even if a vehicle was deemed liable for confiscation, the owner had to be given a hearing, and confiscation was not justified if the owner proved that the vehicle had been used without their knowledge or connivance and that they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such use.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “…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.”
The Court further held, "This Court is further of the view that to direct the Appellant not to sell the vehicle till the trial concludes against the fifth accused, would be extremely unfair as no owner can be directed to possess and own the vehicle indefinitely."
The Appellant was represented by Paromita Majumdar, AOR, while the Kunal Mitra, AOR, represented the Respondent.
Background
The Appellant, an Advocate, purchased a vehicle financed by the bank for Rs. 5,95,796/, payable in 84 equal monthly installments at 9.50% interest. The vehicle was seized by the police in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), and remained in the custody of the investigating agency. Though the Appellant’s name was initially mentioned in the FIR, he was discharged case on the basis of specific statement made by the Investigation Officer before the Trial Court in 2017 itself. However, the Appellant’s vehicle continued to be in the custody of police as an alamat of the case. The Trial Court acquitted four of the five accused persons; the trial against the fifth accused is yet to start, as he absconds.
The Appellant filed an application under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the release of his vehicle, however, the Trial Court rejected the application holding that the application had been filed at a belated stage and was devoid of any merit.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Appellant approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court quashed the seizure order of the Trial Court, subject to the condition that the Appellant would have to furnish a surety bond of Rs.6,00,000/-.
The Appellant contended that since he was given a clean chit at the investigation stage, the vehicle should have been released unconditionally and that the current value of the vehicle was not Rs. 6,00,000/-. He further submitted that he had already paid over Rs. 6,00,000/- in EMIs, and requiring him to sell/transfer the vehicle and furnish a surety bond of Rs.6,00,000/- would be unfair and harsh.
On the contrary, the Respondent argued that since one of the accused was still absconding, the vehicle could not be released unconditionally. It was submitted by the Respondent that a definitive timeline as to when the trial against the fifth accused would conclude could not be given. It was further submitted that the valuation of the vehicle as of date was Rs. 2,10,000/-.
Reasoning of the Court
Upon hearing the parties, the Bench noted, “It is settled law 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.”
The Court referred to its decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025) wherein it was held that there was no specific bar or restriction under the NDPS Act for release of seized vehicle in the interim.
The Bench observed that since the Respondent could not provide a definitive timeline for concluding the trial against the absconding accused, it directed the Trial Court to release the vehicle to the Appellant after recording a video and taking still photographs, subject to the Appellant furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 2,10,000/- instead of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
The Court said, “This Court is further of the view that to direct the Appellant not to sell the vehicle till the trial concludes against the fifth accused, would be extremely unfair as no owner can be directed to possess and own the vehicle indefinitely. Consequently, it is clarified that there is no restriction on the sale/transfer of the car and in the event, the Trial Court ultimately passes an order of confiscation of the Appellant’s vehicle, the Appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand) only, as even if the State were to sell the vehicle in question after confiscation, it would recover the said amount only.”
Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal (Special Leave Petition (Crl.)17081/2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: Paromita Majumdar, AOR; Advocates Pinak Mitra, Jayant Rao, Meenakshi Vimal
Respondent: Kunal Chatterji, AOR; Advocates Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal
