Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. Applicable for Interim Release of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act: Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court held that the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) can be invoked for the interim release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho resolved a legal reference regarding the applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions for such interim releases.

"There is no specific bar or restriction under the NDPS Act for the interim release of vehicles seized during an investigation or trial. In the absence of any explicit prohibition, the general provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. apply to allow courts to release seized vehicles pending final adjudication," observed the Bench.

The judgment gains significance in light of the numerous pending cases where vehicles seized under NDPS Act provisions remain in prolonged custody, suffering deterioration and loss of value, with owners facing undue hardship.

The Court clarified that confiscation of a vehicle under Section 60 of the NDPS Act is contingent on the conclusion of the trial and cannot take place beforehand. Confiscation requires the court to establish that the owner had knowledge or connivance in the illicit use of the vehicle.

"The NDPS Act allows confiscation only after the trial concludes and the accused is convicted or discharged. The law also mandates that the owner of the vehicle must be heard before any confiscation order is passed. In the absence of proven knowledge or connivance on the part of the owner, the vehicle cannot be confiscated."

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40, the Bench emphasized that retention of vehicles in police custody during trial serves no purpose and results in avoidable financial and material losses.

The Court ruled that courts have the discretion to release seized vehicles during the pendency of criminal trials under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., provided appropriate conditions are imposed to preserve their evidentiary value and ensure compliance. It emphasized that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

"While the NDPS Act is a special statute, it does not override the general powers under the Cr.P.C. for dealing with seized property. Sections 451 and 457 provide courts with sufficient authority to order the interim release of vehicles, subject to suitable safeguards. Such a release would balance the interests of justice and the rights of owners without compromising the integrity of the trial."

The Bench further observed that leaving seized vehicles unattended in police custody often leads to significant depreciation, theft, and damage. "Retaining vehicles during trial not only causes hardship to owners but also reduces their value, ultimately harming all stakeholders, including the state," the Court remarked.

The judgment underscores the importance of imposing safeguards while allowing interim release of vehicles to ensure they remain available during the trial. The Court cited the Supreme Court's guidance in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and observed:

"It is open to the Court to impose conditions to protect the evidentiary value of the vehicle and prevent its misuse. Safeguards such as videography, preparation of an inventory authenticated by the owner and investigating officer, and undertakings for production during trial are necessary to balance the competing interests of justice and public welfare."

The Court stressed that a prohibition on the sale or transfer of the vehicle and an undertaking from the owner to produce the vehicle as and when required would effectively mitigate concerns of misuse.

The judgment heavily relied on recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions affirming the applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions for the interim release of seized vehicles in NDPS cases. Citing Bishwajit Dey, the Court noted: "The Supreme Court has categorically held that there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act for the interim release of seized vehicles. In fact, prolonged retention of vehicles in police custody leads to wastage and serves no practical purpose. Courts must exercise their discretion to release vehicles on reasonable terms to prevent unnecessary financial and material losses."

The Bench also referred to other decisions, including Sainaba v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784 and General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 768, which emphasized the need to balance justice with public interest. In Sainaba, the Supreme Court observed: "It is no use to keep seized vehicles in police custody for long periods. Courts should permit their release on appropriate terms, ensuring their production during trial if required."

Addressing concerns raised by the state regarding the potential misuse of released vehicles, the Court emphasized the need for a case-specific approach. It identified four scenarios for the seizure of vehicles in NDPS cases:

•    When the owner is directly implicated in the crime.
•    When the contraband is transported by the owner’s agent (e.g., a driver).
•    When the vehicle is stolen and used by third parties.
•    When the contraband is transported by third-party occupants without the owner's knowledge or consent.
"In cases where the owner is not implicated, and no evidence exists to show the owner's knowledge or connivance, courts should normally allow the interim release of vehicles. However, in cases where the owner or agent is directly implicated, discretion should be exercised more cautiously," the judgment noted.

The NDPS Act does not bar the interim release of vehicles seized during investigations or trials. Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. are applicable for such interim releases, and courts have the discretion to order release based on the facts of each case. Suitable safeguards, including videography, prohibition on sale or transfer, and undertakings for production during trial, must be imposed to ensure compliance. The matter has been remanded to the Single Bench for final disposal in light of the principles laid down in the judgment.

Date of Judgment: January 15, 2025