You Can’t Drive Away With a Truck Full of Poppy Straw and Claim Innocence: Madhya Pradesh High Court Cancels Supurdari in NDPS Case

“3213 kg of poppy straw cannot be loaded without the owner's knowledge—release of such a vehicle during trial is unjustified”, In a strongly worded ruling Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the order of the Additional Special Judge, Mandsaur, which had granted interim custody (supurdginama) of a truck used to transport 3213.6 kg of illegal poppy straw under the NDPS Act, and directed that the vehicle be surrendered within 30 days.

Justice Prem Narayan Singh, allowing the Union’s criminal revision, ruled that the respondent-owner, who was also an accused, could not retain possession of the vehicle used in the commission of a serious NDPS offence: “It cannot be assumed that such a huge quantity is loaded in the offending vehicle without knowledge of the owner… Prima facie, the reverse burden of proof has not been discharged.”

3213 kg of Contraband in the Truck—But Trial Court Released It on a ₹20 Lakh Bond

The truck bearing registration RJ-09-GB-2599 was seized on 1 March 2023 carrying over three tonnes of poppy straw, and a case was registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Despite the gravity of the offence, the trial court granted interim custody of the vehicle to its owner on furnishing a supurdginama bond of ₹20 lakh. The High Court found this legally untenable, especially after the 2014 amendment to Section 52-A NDPS Act, and the 2015 central government notification, which permitted pre-trial disposal of conveyances.

“After 01.05.2014, even conveyances may be disposed of at the pre-trial stage… hence, the trial court’s order is contrary to law.”

“Owner Is Also an Accused”—Court Applies Latest Supreme Court NDPS Guidelines

The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's latest interpretation in Biswajit Dey v. State of M.P., which laid down four scenarios regarding seizure of vehicles under NDPS, clearly distinguishing between owners who are accused and innocent third-party owners.

“In the first two scenarios, where the owner or his agent is involved in possession, the vehicle may not be released… In the third and fourth, where there is no allegation against the owner, interim release may be considered.”

“Here, the owner is not only claiming custody but is himself facing prosecution. Thus, the vehicle must be surrendered.”

“Release of Vehicle During NDPS Trial Defeats the Object of Law”—Court Relies on Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar

Justice Singh also referred to Union of India v. Dinesh Kumar Verma, where the Supreme Court had categorically reversed a High Court order releasing a vehicle during the NDPS trial, holding:

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle.”

Drawing from this precedent, the High Court held:

“The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity. The vehicle must be surrendered to ensure it is preserved for trial and possible confiscation.”

Directions Issued for Surrender and Documentation

The Court directed the vehicle owner to surrender the truck within 30 days, and instructed the trial court to conduct full photography and videography of the vehicle and its documentation before taking custody.

“The bond/surety, if any deposited, shall be treated as discharged only after surrender… Compliance must be ensured.”

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s strict stance on the custody and control of property used in drug trafficking, particularly under the reverse burden framework of the NDPS Act. The message is unequivocal: ownership plus proximity to contraband equals presumption of guilt—until rebutted with strong proof.

“Where the owner is arraigned as an accused and massive contraband is involved, discretionary custody orders cannot override statutory intent.”

Date of Decision: 19 May 2025