2025 (1) TMI 415 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking for interim release of a seized vehicle pending the conclusion of a criminal trial - drug trafficking - HELD THAT - Upon a reading of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view 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. However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner s knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person. This Court is further of the opinion that 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. 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 Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce. Conclusion - In the absence of a specific prohibition under the NDPS Act, the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. could be applied for the interim release of seized vehicles. The appellant was entitled to the interim release of the vehicle, subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial and preventing its misuse. The present Criminal Appeal is allowed with directions to the trial Court to release the Vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Supreme Court judgment primarily revolves around the following legal issues:

• Whether the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) allow for the interim release of a seized vehicle pending the conclusion of a criminal trial.
• Whether the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly Sections 451 and 457, can be invoked for the interim release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act.
• Whether the owner of a vehicle, not accused of any wrongdoing, is entitled to the interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Interim Release of Seized Vehicle under NDPS Act

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The NDPS Act is a special legislation dealing with offences related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It includes provisions for the confiscation of vehicles used in the commission of such offences. The respondent-State argued that the NDPS Act, being a complete code, does not contemplate the interim release of seized vehicles, citing precedents from various High Courts.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that while the NDPS Act provides for confiscation upon conviction, it does not explicitly prohibit interim release. The Court emphasized the absence of a specific bar against interim release under the NDPS Act.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the appellant, the vehicle owner, was not accused of any wrongdoing, and the charge sheet did not allege that the vehicle was used with the owner's knowledge or connivance.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that in the absence of a specific prohibition, general provisions of the Cr.P.C. could be invoked for interim release.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the respondent's argument regarding the risk of misuse and the need for the vehicle as evidence but found these concerns could be addressed through conditions on release.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that interim release of the vehicle was permissible under the NDPS Act, subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial.

Issue 2: Invocation of Cr.P.C. Provisions

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. provide for the interim custody and disposal of property pending trial. The appellant relied on these sections for the release of the vehicle.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted Section 51 of the NDPS Act, which allows for the application of Cr.P.C. provisions unless inconsistent with the NDPS Act. It found no inconsistency in applying Sections 451 and 457 for interim release.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the vehicle was lying unattended and deteriorating, which justified considering its interim release.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Sections 451 and 457 to order the interim release of the vehicle, subject to conditions to prevent its misuse.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court balanced the need for the vehicle as evidence with the owner's right to use it, imposing conditions to safeguard the trial process.
• Conclusions: The Court held that the Cr.P.C. provisions were applicable and justified the interim release of the vehicle.

Issue 3: Entitlement of Vehicle Owner to Interim Release

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered precedents where vehicles were released to owners not accused of any offence, emphasizing the need to prevent undue hardship to innocent owners.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the vehicle owner, not being accused, should not suffer undue hardship, especially when the vehicle was crucial for his livelihood.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The charge sheet did not implicate the owner or his agent, and the vehicle was essential for the owner's income.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the owner's lack of involvement in the offence justified the vehicle's interim release.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court addressed the State's concerns about potential misuse by imposing conditions on the vehicle's release.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the owner was entitled to the interim release of the vehicle, with conditions to ensure its availability for trial.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "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."
• Core Principles Established: The Court established that in the absence of a specific prohibition under the NDPS Act, the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. could be applied for the interim release of seized vehicles.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the appellant was entitled to the interim release of the vehicle, subject to conditions ensuring its availability for trial and preventing its misuse.

The judgment highlights the balance between the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the rights of innocent vehicle owners, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of each case's facts and circumstances.