Summary
The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act contains no specific bar on the interim release of a seized vehicle, so trial courts may release it under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (applicable through Section 51 of the NDPS Act). Where neither the owner nor his agent is accused and the contraband was recovered from a third-party occupant, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari on conditions. The appellant's truck was ordered to be released.
Issues
- Whether a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the NDPS Act can be released to its owner in the interim, pending trial, under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC.
- In what circumstances such interim release should be granted, particularly where the owner and driver are not accused and the contraband was recovered from a third-party occupant.
Provisions considered
- Section 60(3), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985A conveyance used to carry narcotics is liable to confiscation unless the owner proves it was used without his, his agent's or the person-in-charge's knowledge or connivance and that each took reasonable precautions; the Court read this as permitting confiscation only at the conclusion of trial and after hearing anyone claiming a right in the vehicle. (¶¶ 14, 21)
- Sections 36C and 51, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 51 applies the CrPC to searches and seizures under the NDPS Act so far as not inconsistent with it; in the absence of a specific bar, this enables the general powers under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC to be invoked for interim return of a seized vehicle. (¶¶ 14, 22, 23, 33)
- Section 52A(1) and second proviso to Section 63, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Relied on by the State, with High Court decisions, to argue that the Act exhaustively governs disposal of seized conveyances; the Court found no specific bar in the Act on interim return and noted divergent High Court views. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19, 22)
- Sections 451 and 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Held available to the trial court for interim custody and release of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case, as a discretion to be exercised in accordance with law on the facts of each case. (¶¶ 9, 23, 30)
- Section 21(b), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The offence for which the third-party occupant alone was charge-sheeted for possessing 24.8 grams of heroin found in the appellant's truck. (¶¶ 5, 8, 32)
Held
- Since the decisions of the Supreme Court on seized vehicles were confined to their facts or to the meaning of 'owner', the question was examined from first principles. A seized vehicle can be confiscated only at the conclusion of the trial, after hearing any person claiming a right in it, and is not liable to confiscation if the owner proves use without his knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The NDPS Act contains no specific bar on the interim return of a seized vehicle used to transport narcotics; by virtue of Section 51, the trial court may invoke Sections 451 and 457 CrPC and has a discretion to release the vehicle in the interim, to be exercised according to the facts of each case. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Courts lean against constructions that produce absurd results; the State's reading would require a plane, bus or ship to be held until the end of trial whenever a passenger carried drugs without the operator's knowledge. Coercive action cannot rest on fear or hypothetical risk of misuse, and the vehicle's evidentiary value can be preserved by videography, authenticated photographs and a restriction on transfer. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Where the owner or his agent (such as a hired driver) is the person from whom contraband is recovered, the vehicle may be withheld until the accused owner discharges the reverse burden. Where the vehicle was stolen, or the contraband was recovered from a third-party occupant without any allegation in the charge-sheet against the owner or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released on superdari on a bond to produce it or pay its value if confiscation is later ordered. This is not a rigid formula and trial courts may take a different view if the facts warrant. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- As the charge-sheet named only a third-party occupant and not the owner or driver, and the police did not find knowledge, connivance or lack of reasonable precautions on the owner's part, the truck was entitled to release; keeping it in police custody, exposed to the weather, would serve no purpose, while release would benefit the owner, the financier and the public. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial court directed to release the truck to the appellant on superdari after a video, still photographs and identification documents are prepared and authenticated by the investigating officer, owner and accused; the appellant must not sell or transfer it until the trial ends and must undertake to surrender it within one week of being directed or pay its value (determined under income tax law as on the date of release) if so ordered.