“No Trial, No Confiscation”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Confiscation of Vehicle in NDPS Case After Accused's Death

“Where the trial itself never took place due to death of the accused, the question of confiscation under Section 60(3) of NDPS Act does not arise.” — In a significant pronouncement Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that confiscation of property under the NDPS Act cannot proceed when the criminal trial has abated due to the death of the accused. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in conjunction with Section 63, both of which require a judicial determination—conviction, acquittal, or discharge—for confiscation to be lawful.

The Court quashed the order passed by the Special NDPS Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which had directed confiscation of a Volkswagen Vento car allegedly used in the transportation of 7.040 kg of opium by the now-deceased accused, Kuldeep Sharma. Instead, the High Court directed that the vehicle be released to the legal heirs on superdari.

“The trial against Kuldeep Sharma stood abated due to his death — in absence of adjudication, confiscation is legally unsustainable.”

The accused, Kuldeep Sharma, was arrested on 16 February 2014 under Sections 8, 18, and 60 of the NDPS Act after narcotics were allegedly recovered from the said vehicle. However, before the trial could proceed, he died in custody on 8 June 2016, and the case stood abated on 22 September 2016.

Despite this, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) moved an application on 5 July 2016 seeking confiscation of the seized vehicle under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. Simultaneously, the legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking superdari (interim custody) of the vehicle.

The Special Judge, however, allowed the confiscation and rejected the claim of the legal heirs, prompting the present criminal revision petition before the High Court.

“NDPS Act does not envisage confiscation when the offence stands unadjudicated due to death of the accused.”

Justice Bedi observed that Section 63 of the NDPS Act is explicit in requiring judicial application of mind to the issue of confiscation—something that is possible only after trial. He stated:

“Sections 60(3) and 63(1) of the NDPS Act would envisage a situation where the trial has taken place and there is a judgment of conviction or acquittal... However, in the instant case, as the trial itself never took place on account of the death of the accused-Kuldeep Sharma, the question of confiscation would not arise.”

The Court also held that statutory silence on post-death confiscation cannot be presumed to permit such an action. It further emphasized that confiscation must be a consequence of legal adjudication, and not merely an administrative act following seizure.

“Vehicle used in offence can be confiscated only when owner fails to prove lack of knowledge—this test fails when no trial occurs.”

Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation of conveyances used in transporting narcotic drugs. However, the owner must be given a chance to prove lack of knowledge or connivance. In this case, no such adjudication was possible since Kuldeep Sharma died before trial, and the prosecution could not establish culpability or rebut the defense.

The NCB contended that opportunity of hearing was given to the legal heirs. But the Court clarified that a mere hearing cannot substitute a judicial finding of guilt or even discharge, and reiterated:

“The Act is silent as to whether or not a vehicle can be confiscated in a situation wherein the accused… has passed away and proceedings/Trial qua him stand abated.”

High Court Orders Release of Vehicle to Legal Heirs

Finding the lower court’s confiscation order unsustainable, Justice Bedi quashed it and allowed the petition, stating:

“The vehicle (Volkswagen Vento Car) bearing No.PB-11AT-0026 is ordered to be released on superdari to the petitioners on furnishing superdarinama/superdari bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”

The ruling ensures that legal heirs are not unfairly deprived of property when there has been no adjudication of guilt, preserving both procedural fairness and property rights.

Confiscation Cannot Override Fundamental Fairness Without Trial

This decision reaffirms the essential due process safeguard that confiscation must flow from judicial findings—not from mere allegations or procedural defaults. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set a compelling precedent, ruling that death of the accused and consequent abatement of trial bars any further punitive action like confiscation.

Date of Decision: 28 August 2025