Back
High Court Pulls Plug on Vehicle Seizure Over Skipped NDPS Safeguards
The has underscored that confiscation of a conveyance allegedly used in narcotics offences cannot proceed without strict adherence to . In a recent ruling, Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi set aside an order directing the sale of a Tata Sumo vehicle, holding that the owner was never given a chance to prove her lack of .
The Heart of the Dispute
Neerudi Dhanamma, a vegetable vendor and owner of the disputed vehicle bearing registration AP 04 K 3141, approached the High Court after the ordered confiscation while convicting other accused in NDPS Session Case No. 14 of 2008. The vehicle had purportedly transported narcotic substances, yet Dhanamma maintained she remained completely unaware of any illicit activity.
The core legal question was straightforward: can a confiscate a conveyance without first following the explicit procedure laid down in the ?
Owner's Contention: No Notice, No Opportunity
Counsel for the appellant drew the Court's attention to
, which expressly protects an innocent owner. The provision states that a conveyance
"shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner... proves that it was so used without the
of the owner himself... and that each of them had taken
."
further mandates that before any confiscation order, the court must decide liability after hearing any person claiming right over the article. Crucially, a one-month window must expire and affected parties must be heard. None of this occurred in the trial court's hurried order that merely stated the vehicle
"is ordered to be sold"
after the appeal period.
State's Fair Concession on Procedural Lapse
The Additional Public Prosecutor candidly admitted during arguments that a reading of the 2008 judgment revealed no attempt by the to follow Sections 60 and 63. This frank concession proved decisive. The State did not seriously oppose the plea that the owner deserved an opportunity to establish her .
Court's Reasoning: Procedure Is Non-Negotiable
Justice Chakravarthi observed that the impugned order indicated the trial court
"did not follow any procedure before passing the said order, particularly the procedure prescribed and contemplated under law."
The High Court emphasized that mere conviction of co-accused could not automatically translate into confiscation without independent
to the
.
The Court further clarified that an appeal against such confiscation lies under the combined reading of and .
Key Observations
The judgment contains several pointed observations worth quoting:
-
"A reading of the said judgment does not disclose that the learned followed the procedure contemplated under ."
-
"The order of confiscation of M.O.8 – Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141 - is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside."
-
"The matter is remitted to the learned to consider the issue afresh... after affording an opportunity to the appellant and the respondent-State."
What Happens Next?
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the confiscation, and directed the to re-examine the matter within three months. The owner will now finally get her day before the trial court to demonstrate absence of .
This ruling serves as a timely reminder to all Special Courts handling NDPS cases that the is not a formality but a substantive protection embedded in the statute itself. Future confiscation orders ignoring this framework will face similar judicial scrutiny.
Information reported from the judgment dated and corroborative reports on procedural compliance under the .
