Pranav B Prem

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no specific restriction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) against the interim release of vehicles seized for transporting contraband. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, highlights that trial courts have the discretion to release such vehicles pending the disposal of the criminal case, provided conditions are imposed to safeguard the prosecution's interests.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from a Gauhati High Court judgment dismissing a plea challenging the denial of interim release of a truck seized under the NDPS Act. The appellant, who had purchased the truck on an equated monthly installment of Rs. 1,00,020, claimed that the vehicle was his sole source of income. The truck was seized after authorities found 24.8 grams of heroin concealed within it during a routine check. The main accused, who was a third-party occupant, was arrested on the spot.

The appellant argued that neither he nor the driver was aware of the contraband's presence. The driver and helper were cited as prosecution witnesses, and no allegations of complicity were made against them or the owner in the charge sheet.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Applicability of CrPC Sections 451 and 457: The Bench noted that Section 51 of the NDPS Act permits the application of provisions from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), as long as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, which deal with the disposal of property and interim custody, can be invoked for the release of seized vehicles.

2. Absence of a Statutory Bar: The Court found no specific provision in the NDPS Act prohibiting the interim release of seized vehicles. It emphasized that confiscation under Section 60 of the Act occurs only upon the conclusion of a trial, and the owner must be given an opportunity to prove their lack of knowledge or involvement.

3. Balancing Interests: Recognizing that vehicles are crucial pieces of evidence, the Court suggested measures like videography, still photographs, and documentation authenticated by the Investigating Officer, vehicle owner, and accused to preserve the evidence. Conditions such as restrictions on sale or transfer can be imposed to mitigate risks.

4. Four Scenarios for Seizure:

   • When the owner is directly implicated.

   • When the contraband is found with the owner's agent (e.g., driver).

   • When the vehicle is stolen and used for transporting contraband.

   • When a third-party occupant carries the contraband without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

   The Court noted that interim release is more likely in the latter two scenarios, where no allegations are made against the owner or their agent.

Decision

In the present case, the Court observed that neither the owner nor the driver had been implicated in the charge sheet, and the accused was a third-party occupant. The investigation revealed no evidence of the owner’s knowledge or connivance. Therefore, the Court directed the trial court to release the truck on superdari (interim custody) with specific conditions, including:

• Preparation of a detailed inventory with videographic and photographic evidence.

• Submission of an undertaking by the owner not to sell or transfer the vehicle until the trial’s conclusion.

• Assurance to produce the vehicle as and when required or to pay its assessed value if confiscated.

Reliance on Precedents

The Court referred to several precedents, including:

• Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002): Advocating for the prompt release of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration.

• Sainaba v. State of Kerala (2022): Allowing interim release of a vehicle when the owner had no knowledge of its misuse.

Cause Title: Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam

Citation: 2025 INSC 32

Date: January-07-2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol , Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]