NDPS Act | Vehicle Cannot Be Confiscated If Owner Is Not an Accused: Orissa High Court

“Owner, Not Offender……When the owner is not the accused, the punishment cannot travel to her property.” — declared the Orissa High Court in a strongly worded judgment, setting aside the confiscation of a truck under the NDPS Act, after three decades of pendency.

On 18th November 2025, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while deciding Criminal Revision, quashed the confiscation of truck Reg. No. ABK-799, originally ordered by the Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in 1994, holding that the appellant—Smt. M. Appala Narasamma—was never an accused, and her ownership rights were undisputed.

“Confiscation Cannot Be a Collateral Casualty”: High Court Upholds Innocent Owner’s Rights

The truck in question was seized in May 1993 after 19 gunny bags of ganja were found inside, hidden under bananas. Two persons—the driver and cleaner—were convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act, but the owner, Smt. Narasamma, was never implicated in the case.

Despite this, the Trial Court ordered the confiscation and sale of the vehicle, treating it as part of the crime. Challenging this, the appellant filed the present revision under Section 454 CrPC, arguing that her property rights were being extinguished without trial or accusation.

The High Court agreed:

“The appellant was not an accused in the case, nor is there any evidence of her involvement. The confiscation order cannot stand where the link between crime and ownership is non-existent.”

“Confiscation Sans Clarity Is Unjust”: Court Pulls Up State for Recordless Delay

The Court’s frustration was palpable as it noted the State’s failure to provide basic information—whether the convicts had filed appeals, or whether the vehicle still existed.

“Despite repeated directions, the State failed to trace the case record, confirm appeals by convicts, or establish the current status of the seized truck. After three decades, prolonging this matter serves no legal purpose,” the Court observed.

In a report dated 07.11.2025, the Rayagada Excise Station admitted it could not locate the confiscation records, and had written to the Sessions Court seeking documents. But the Sessions Court itself had no record of the case.

“Zima Stood for 31 Years – That’s Punishment Enough”: Court Releases Security, Restores Ownership

Back in 1994, the High Court had granted interim custody (zima) of the truck to the appellant on condition of furnishing cash security of ₹10,000 and property security of ₹70,000. That security remained intact for over 31 years, pending final orders.

Calling it a “wholly unnecessary and prolonged deprivation of property”, the Court ordered:

“The impugned order of confiscation is hereby set aside. The security furnished by the appellant stands released with immediate effect.”

“No Confiscation Without Conviction of Owner”: Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Ownership Alone Does Not Imply Guilt
  The Court clarified that being the owner of a vehicle used in a crime does not automatically justify confiscation unless complicity or knowledge is established.
• Section 454 CrPC Offers Remedy to Aggrieved Owners
  The appellant had rightly invoked Section 454 CrPC, which allows revision of orders relating to disposal of property after trial—even if the owner is not on trial.
• Due Process Must Be Respected, Even in Narcotics Cases
  The Court underscored that NDPS Act’s strictness cannot override basic procedural fairness, especially when the accused and property owner are different.

 “Justice Delayed, Yet Delivered”

After over three decades, the High Court put an end to the legal limbo suffered by the appellant, reinforcing the principle that property cannot be punished for crimes its owner didn’t commit.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025