Criminal appeal regarding the interim release of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (NDPS) case. The appellant, the owner of the truck, is challenging a previous court’s decision to deny the vehicle’s release. The core issue is whether seized vehicles in NDPS cases can be released pending the trial, particularly when the owner claims no knowledge of the illegal activity and is not named as an accused in the charge sheet. The document discusses relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the NDPS Act, contrasting the arguments of the appellant and the respondent (the State of Assam) and referencing prior court rulings on similar matters. Ultimately, the Court concludes there is no absolute bar under the NDPS Act for interim release and allows the appeal, directing the trial court to release the vehicle under specific conditions.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 and 457 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 51 – NDPS – Superdari – Seizure of truck – Recovery of 28.4 grams of heroin from possession of third party occupant travelling in truck – Under the provisions of NDPS Act 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 – 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 – 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 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 – However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Para 21 to 23)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 and 457 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 51 – NDPS – Seizure of truck – Superdari – Recovery of 28.4 grams of heroin from possession of third party occupant travelling in truck – After conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS – In the said chargesheet, neither the owner of the Vehicle nor the driver has been arrayed as an accused – Only a third-party occupant has been arrayed as an accused – The police after investigation has not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has 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.
(Para 32)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 and 457 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 51 – NDPS – Seizure of truck – Superdari – Recovery of 28.4 grams of heroin from possession of third party occupant travelling in truck – Held that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose – The Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open – Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce – On the contrary, 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) – Appeal allowed with directions to 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 shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same – Further, the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the Vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the Vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the Vehicle (determined according to Income Tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.
(Para 34 to 36)
Bishwajit Dey V. State Of Assam
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 32: (DoJ 07-01-2025)
