Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has clarified that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), does not impose any specific restriction on the return of vehicles seized for transporting narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. This was observed in a batch of Criminal Revisions, where the question of interim release of such vehicles under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was referred to a Division Bench by a Single Judge.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho stated, “There is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim, pending disposal of the criminal case.” The judgment was delivered on January 15, 2025.

Background

The primary issue was whether Section 457 of the CrPC applies to the interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act during investigation or trial. The Single Judge had referred this question to the Division Bench while hearing Criminal Revisions challenging orders from lower courts that denied interim release of vehicles seized under NDPS provisions. The petitioners contended that the NDPS Act does not prohibit the application of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC for the interim release of vehicles pending trial. They argued that seized vehicles often deteriorate due to prolonged exposure to weather conditions while kept in police or excise department premises. Many of these vehicles are owned by individuals who are not accused in the related cases. “By the time of the trial’s conclusion or confiscation proceedings, the vehicles’ value diminishes substantially, causing financial loss to the owner,” counsel for the petitioners argued. Amicus Curiae D. Panda, along with Advocates S.R. Mulia and Anupam Dash, represented the petitioners, while Additional Government Advocate L. Samantray appeared for the State.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on the matter but relied on foundational principles to conclude that interim release of vehicles is permissible under the CrPC. The court held:

1. “In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC for release of the seized vehicle pending final decision in the criminal case.”

2. The discretion to release seized vehicles in the interim must be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court emphasized the need for safeguards, stating, “If the Court decides to exercise its discretion to release a vehicle during pendency of the criminal case, suitable conditions have to be imposed to ensure its identification and production during trial with an embargo on its sale and/or transfer till conclusion of the trial and for submission of a specific undertaking for production of such vehicle.”

The court also highlighted the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 SCC Online SC 40), which dealt with a similar issue. The Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left unattended as their value depreciates over time. Instead, they could be released on interim custody with adequate safeguards.

Legislative Context and Precedents

The High Court referred to key provisions of the NDPS Act and CrPC, including:

• Section 51, NDPS Act: Provisions of the CrPC apply unless inconsistent with the NDPS Act.

• Section 63, NDPS Act (Second Proviso): Allows for the sale of seized items other than narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances if deemed beneficial for the owner.

• Section 451, CrPC: Empowers courts to pass orders for the interim custody or disposal of property.

• Section 457, CrPC: Permits magistrates to decide on the disposal of seized property when it is not produced before the court during an inquiry or trial.

The judgment also outlined four scenarios concerning the seizure of vehicles used for transporting contraband. It noted that vehicles owned by individuals unaware of their misuse or those stolen and later used for illegal purposes may warrant interim release. On the other hand, vehicles directly linked to accused persons or their agents may not qualify for such relief.  

Cause Title: Rabindra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLREV No.503 of 2022 & batch

Date: January-15-2025

Bench: Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho

[Read/Download order]