Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India allowing the release of a truck seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The court held that interim custody of a seized vehicle can be granted under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), unless there is proof that the owner knowingly permitted its use for illegal activities.

The bench, comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized that retaining the vehicle without purpose during the pendency of the trial would lead to unnecessary deterioration and economic loss. Observing that the NDPS Act does not explicitly bar the interim release of vehicles, the court allowed the appellant, an innocent owner, to recover his truck under stringent conditions.

The case involved a truck (Registration No. AS-01-NC-4355) owned by the appellant, Bishwajit Dey, which was seized on April 10, 2023, during a police check in Assam. The police discovered 24.8 grams of heroin in two soap boxes concealed in the truck. The main accused, Md. Dimpul, a third-party occupant of the truck, was arrested and charged under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. Neither the appellant nor his driver was implicated in the chargesheet filed by the police.

The appellant sought the release of his truck, arguing that it was his sole source of income and that it was used without his knowledge or consent for transporting narcotics. However, both the trial court and the Gauhati High Court rejected his plea, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues: whether the NDPS Act prohibits the interim release of vehicles used for drug trafficking and whether an innocent owner can claim interim custody of their vehicle.

Applicability of Cr.P.C. to NDPS Cases

The court noted that Section 51 of the NDPS Act allows the application of Cr.P.C. provisions unless inconsistent with the NDPS Act. As the NDPS Act does not explicitly bar the interim release of vehicles, Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., which permit the release of seized property pending trial, are applicable. The court emphasized, "Interim release of a vehicle is permissible unless it conflicts with the NDPS Act’s objectives."

Absurdity of Indefinite Retention

The court rejected the State’s argument that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act must remain in custody until the trial concludes. It observed that such an interpretation would lead to absurd outcomes, such as indefinite detention of buses, planes, or ships used unknowingly for drug transport. "Laws must not lead to irrational or unjust results," the bench stated.

The court acknowledged the necessity of retaining vehicles as evidence but stressed that modern technology, such as videography and photographs, can sufficiently document the vehicle for trial purposes.

Innocent Owner’s Rights

The court highlighted the four common scenarios involving vehicle seizures under the NDPS Act:

• The owner is directly involved in the crime.

• The owner’s agent (e.g., driver) is complicit.

• The vehicle is stolen and used for illegal activities.

• The vehicle is unknowingly used by a third party.

The bench clarified that interim release should generally be granted in the latter two scenarios, as long as the owner can prove a lack of knowledge and reasonable precautions to prevent misuse. In this case, the chargesheet made no allegations against the appellant or his driver, supporting the appellant’s claim of innocence.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to release the truck to the appellant on the following conditions:

1. A detailed inventory, including photographs and video, must be prepared and authenticated by the investigating officer, the vehicle owner, and the accused.

2. The appellant is prohibited from selling or altering the vehicle during the trial.

3. The appellant must provide an undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required by the court or compensate its value as determined at the time of release.

The court emphasized that retaining the vehicle in police custody serves no purpose, as it would suffer wear and tear from prolonged exposure to weather, reducing its value. Releasing the vehicle would not only benefit the appellant economically but also serve societal interests by preventing waste.

This judgment underscores the balance courts must maintain between enforcing stringent anti-narcotics laws and protecting the rights of innocent third parties. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that prolonged detention of property without purpose serves neither justice nor public interest.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025