Pranav B Prem

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside the confiscation order of a vehicle allegedly involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), emphasizing that such an order must be passed in accordance with Section 63 of the Act. The Court emphasized that confiscation proceedings should be dealt with separately and independently from the trial, irrespective of the accused’s conviction or acquittal.

Background of the Case

The case involved an application filed under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, read with Sections 498 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking a stay on the confiscation of a car already released on superdari by the trial court. The appellant contended that the trial court had erroneously ordered confiscation alongside the pronouncement of conviction and sentencing, without following the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 63 of the NDPS Act.

Court’s Observations

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while adjudicating the matter, ruled that: "Section 63(1) of NDPS Act elucidates that irrespective of whether the accused is found guilty, acquitted or discharged, learned trial Court must determine whether any item or property seized under NDPS Act is subject to confiscation under Sections 60, 61 or 62 of NDPS Act separately. The process of confiscation is not contingent upon the outcome of the trial and is to be dealt by the Court independently."

The Court further noted that: "In fact, Section 63(2) of NDPS Act goes to the extent of stating that the Court's power to order confiscation of a vehicle is not dependent on whether its owner is prosecuted along with other accused individuals." It clarified that confiscation could proceed even if the offender remained unidentified or could not be located, provided the court conducted an inquiry to determine liability. "Following such an inquiry, the Court may proceed with confiscation. Furthermore, as stated above, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 63 of NDPS Act explicitly states that if any person asserts a legitimate claim over the seized property or item, they must be granted a hearing."

Violation of Natural Justice

A key aspect of the judgment was the emphasis on procedural fairness and natural justice. The Court held that the confiscation order had been passed arbitrarily without affording the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard. Justice Brar noted: "The applicant-appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the confiscation order was passed, thereby breaching the right to a fair hearing. Additionally, the confiscation was ordered on the same day, as pronouncement of conviction and sentence, without due compliance with Sections 60 & 63 of NDPS Act, which lay down the procedure for confiscation, thereby rendering the order of sentence dated 22.11.2024 as arbitrary and unjust."

Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of Assam, where it was held that: "The seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation." Additionally, the Court cited Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder Vs. State of Punjab, which reaffirmed that: "A vehicle seized under the NDPS Act cannot be kept idle to the disadvantage of everyone concerned till the order of confiscation is passed on conclusion of trial."

Legal Framework of Section 63 of NDPS Act

The judgment elaborated on the procedural requirements under Section 63 of the NDPS Act:

1. No order of confiscation can we made before the expiry of one month from the date of seizure.

2. No order can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to any person who may claim a right over the seized article or thing.

3. The Court must take evidence in support of any such claim before deciding the matter.

Verdict

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the trial court’s order violated statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice, as the confiscation was ordered simultaneously with the sentencing without following due process. The Court ruled that: "Confiscation of the vehicle without passing an appropriate order under Section 63 of NDPS Act by following the prescribed procedure is illegal, non est, and unsustainable in the eyes of law." Accordingly, the impugned order of confiscation dated 22.11.2024 was set aside.

Cause Title: Vijay Kumar V. State of Punjab

Case No: CRM-844-2025 in CRA-S-4055-2024

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

[Read/Download order]