Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case

Mere Seizure Does Not Extinguish Ownership Rights: High Court Overturns Trial Court’s Order Denying Interim Custody. Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that confiscation of a vehicle allegedly used in a narcotics offence is not automatic and can only be ordered upon conviction. Setting aside the trial court’s refusal to grant interim custody of a seized Hyundai Creta, the court held that denying possession to the registered owner merely on the presumption that the vehicle might be confiscated in the future is legally untenable.

Delivering the judgment on January 22, 2025, Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held that the trial court's reasoning was flawed and contrary to settled legal principles. "At this stage, it cannot be said that the vehicle would be liable for confiscation. Only upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can the trial court order confiscation. Denying interim custody on mere speculation is erroneous," the court observed.

The High Court directed the trial court to release the vehicle to its rightful owner upon furnishing a self-bond and sureties, ensuring its production whenever required during the trial.

Trial Court Denies Interim Custody, High Court Finds Flawed Reasoning
The case arose from Crime No. 295 of 2022, registered at S. Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram, under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The police had seized the Hyundai Creta (AP 39 KX 5677), alleging that it was used to transport narcotics. The petitioner, Kolli Srinivas Reddy, approached the trial court seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C., asserting that he was the registered owner and that the vehicle was hypothecated to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited.

The trial court, however, rejected his plea, reasoning that the vehicle would ultimately be confiscated if the offence was proved and that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he was a bona fide purchaser or that the vehicle had not been used for illegal purposes. This order was challenged before the High Court, which found that the trial court had proceeded on incorrect legal assumptions.

"A Vehicle is Not Contraband": High Court Clarifies Law on Seizure and Confiscation
The High Court held that while the NDPS Act provides for the confiscation of vehicles involved in drug trafficking, such an order can only be passed upon conviction and not during the trial stage. The mere fact that a vehicle was seized in connection with an NDPS case does not automatically divest the owner of his possession or ownership rights. The court emphasized that there is a fundamental distinction between contraband itself and a vehicle alleged to have been used for its transportation. "A vehicle, unlike contraband, is not inherently illegal and does not require automatic seizure or confiscation," the court stated.

The judgment further noted that keeping the vehicle unused in a police station or court premises would lead to unnecessary deterioration and loss of value. The petitioner, who was not an accused in the case, had established his ownership rights, and there was no justification for denying him interim custody.

Court Directs Release of Vehicle with Safeguards
Allowing the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that interim custody be granted to the petitioner. The vehicle would be released upon execution of a self-bond for its assessed value, along with two sureties of a similar amount. The petitioner was also required to furnish an undertaking that he would not transfer ownership or make any modifications to the vehicle and would produce it before the court whenever directed.

This ruling establishes an important legal precedent, affirming that confiscation is a consequence of conviction and not a presumption at the stage of trial. The judgment underscores that the rights of a registered owner cannot be arbitrarily denied, particularly when he is not an accused in the case. The High Court’s decision ensures a fair balance between law enforcement objectives and the rights of vehicle owners, preventing undue hardship and unnecessary financial losses.
 

Date of Decision: 22 January 2025