Supreme Court sets aside confiscation of vehicle allegedly used for trafficking narcotics.

Key Issue

The case addressed whether vehicles allegedly involved in drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act could be confiscated before the conclusion of the trial.

Background

1. Facts of the Case:
   • A truck owned by the appellant, Bishwajit Dey, was seized by authorities on April 10, 2023, for allegedly transporting 24.8 grams of heroin concealed in soap boxes.
   • While the main accused was arrested, neither the truck owner nor the driver was named as an accused in the chargesheet.
2. Proceedings:
   • The trial court and the Gauhati High Court refused interim release of the truck, citing the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

Supreme Court Findings

1. Timing of Confiscation:
   • Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act can only occur after the trial concludes, following conviction, acquittal, or discharge of the accused.
2. Owner’s Innocence:
   • Vehicles can be released if the owner proves they were unaware of the illegal activity and had taken reasonable precautions to prevent misuse.
3. Interim Release:
   • The Court emphasized that there is no bar under the NDPS Act against interim release of vehicles.
   • Courts may invoke powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the return of seized vehicles pending trial.
4. Preservation of Property:
   • Detaining vehicles in police custody for prolonged periods often results in deterioration and loss of value, serving no practical purpose.

Operative Part of the Judgment

The Court directed the release of the appellant’s truck, provided he fulfilled necessary conditions to ensure its non-misuse during the trial. It underscored the need for judicial discretion to strike a balance between enforcement of stringent laws and prevention of undue hardship to innocent parties.

Legal Principles Enunciated

1. Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act must align with the conclusion of the trial.
2. Interim release of vehicles is permissible if the owner demonstrates lack of complicity and reasonable care against misuse.
3. Courts can invoke CrPC provisions to return seized vehicles on appropriate terms.

Significance

This judgment reinforces the principle that the legal system must prevent unnecessary hardship to innocent owners while upholding the rigorous provisions of the NDPS Act. It also highlights the importance of safeguarding property from deterioration during prolonged legal proceedings.

Link to Judgment: Supreme Court of India Judgments

Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025

Delivered On: January 7, 2025