Supreme Court Allows Interim Release of Seized Truck Under NDPS Act: Balances Owner’s Rights and Evidence Preservation, Sets Conditions to Prevent Misuse

---

---

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the interim release of the seized truck owned by the appellant, setting specific conditions. The Court ruled there is no explicit prohibition under the NDPS Act against releasing a seized vehicle during trial. It invoked its discretionary powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to ensure fair outcomes, considering the facts of the case.

---

Detailed Breakdown

---

Facts of the Case

1. The appellant owned a truck purchased for commercial use and financed through monthly installments.
2. During a police checkpoint inspection, 24.8 grams of heroin were discovered concealed within the truck, and a third-party passenger was arrested.
3. The appellant and the truck’s driver were not named as accused in the chargesheet. They contended they had no knowledge of the contraband.
4. The vehicle was seized, and its prolonged retention at the police station exposed it to weather damage, reducing its value.

---

Issues Before the Court

1. Does the NDPS Act allow the interim release of a seized vehicle during trial?
2. Can the trial court invoke general provisions under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. to order the release of such vehicles?
3. What conditions should apply if interim release is granted?

---

Arguments by the Appellant

1. Sole Livelihood: The seized truck was the appellant’s only source of income.
2. No Knowledge or Connivance: Neither the appellant nor the driver had knowledge of the contraband.
3. Legal Provisions and Precedents:
   • Cited Section 451 Cr.P.C., allowing the release of property pending trial if its retention serves no purpose.
   • Referred to precedents like Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), where the Supreme Court emphasized releasing seized vehicles to prevent unnecessary damage.

---

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Assam)

1. Special Law Overrides General Law: The NDPS Act is a stringent law that overrides Cr.P.C. provisions, making interim release inappropriate.
2. Preserving Evidence: The seized vehicle is material evidence and may be required for inspection during trial (e.g., demonstrating concealment of contraband).
3. Risk of Misuse: Premature release may lead to the vehicle’s misuse for illegal activities, such as drug trafficking.
4. Preventing Loopholes: Allowing interim release could encourage offenders to misuse vehicles owned by third parties to evade confiscation.

---

Court’s Legal Analysis

1. Interpretation of the NDPS Act:
   • The NDPS Act permits the confiscation of vehicles used for trafficking but only after trial and upon conviction.
   • Under Section 60(3), the owner can avoid confiscation if they prove lack of knowledge or connivance in the offense.
   • The Court found no explicit bar in the NDPS Act against releasing vehicles during trial.
2. Applicability of Cr.P.C.:
   • Section 51 NDPS Act states that Cr.P.C. provisions apply unless inconsistent with the NDPS Act.
   • Since the NDPS Act does not explicitly prohibit interim release, Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to ensure fair and just outcomes.
3. Balancing Evidence Preservation and Owner’s Rights:
   • The Court acknowledged that retaining the vehicle during trial could result in significant damage, reducing its value.
   • It emphasized the importance of conditions to preserve evidence, such as videography and undertakings.

---

Precedent Analysis

The Court reviewed conflicting precedents:

• Favorable to Interim Release:
  • Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002): Advocated for releasing vehicles with appropriate safeguards.
  • Sainaba v. State of Kerala (2022): Allowed interim release under stringent conditions.
• Against Interim Release:
  • Narender Kaur v. Arun Sheoran (2000): Held that vehicles used in drug trafficking should not be released until trial concludes.

The Court leaned towards a balanced approach, emphasizing the facts and circumstances of each case.

---

Court’s Reasoning

1. Four Scenarios of Vehicle Seizure:
   • Owner Involved: Confiscation likely; interim release inappropriate.
   • Agent (Driver) Involved: Similar treatment as owner involvement.
   • Stolen Vehicle Used: Release permitted if the owner proves innocence.
   • Third-Party Use: Interim release is appropriate if the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance.
2. Absence of Owner Involvement:
   • In this case, the chargesheet did not implicate the owner or driver. The accused was a third-party occupant.
   • The Court ruled that such vehicles should be released during trial to prevent unnecessary damage and economic hardship.
3. Conditions for Release:
   • Document the vehicle’s condition through photographs and video.
   • Restrict the sale or transfer of ownership.
   • Require an undertaking to surrender the vehicle or pay its assessed value if ordered.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to release the vehicle under the following conditions:

1. Prepare a video and photographic record of the vehicle before release.
2. Obtain the owner’s undertaking to surrender the vehicle or pay its value if ordered.
3. Prohibit the owner from selling or transferring ownership during the trial.

---

Implications

1. Clarifies NDPS Act Interpretation:
   • Confirms the absence of a statutory bar against interim release under the NDPS Act.
2. Protects Innocent Owners:
   • Balances stringent enforcement with the rights of innocent vehicle owners.
3. Guidance for Future Cases:
   • Provides a framework for trial courts to exercise discretion in similar cases.

This judgment serves as a critical precedent in balancing enforcement under the NDPS Act with the rights of third-party vehicle owners.

Also Read – Calcutta High Court Reiterates Mandatory Role of WB Municipal Service Commission in Municipal Recruitments: Direct Appointments by Municipalities Deemed Non-Compliant Post-2019 Notification