IMPORTANT POINT
There is no specific bar/restriction under provisions of NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in interim, pending disposal of criminal case – In absence of any specific bar under NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, Court can invoke general power under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of seized vehicle pending final decision in criminal case.

JUDGMENT

Savitri Ratho, J.—The following question had been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Crl.Rev. No. 346 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 205 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 253 of 2022, Crl.Rev. 266 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 353 of 2022 and Crl.Rev. No.356 of 2022:-

“to examine the question as to whether the provision under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. will have no application in a case of release of the vehicle seized under the N.D.P.S. Act during investigation or trial of the case.”

2. This common order dated 23.08.2022 had been passed by the learned Single Judge while hearing the batch of criminal revisions which had been filed challenging the orders rejecting applications filed U/s. 457 of Cr.P.C., for release of vehicles, seized in connection with prosecutions under the NDPS Act, by the learned Courts below. Other criminal revisions involving similar question had also been tagged and listed before us alongwith Crl.Rev. No. 346 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 205 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 253 of 2022, Crl.Rev. 266 of 2022, Crl.Rev. No. 353 of 2022 and Crl.Rev. No. 356 of 2022.

3. We have heard Mr. D Panda learned amicus curiae, Mr. S.R. Mulia and Mr. Anupam Dash learned counsel and Mr. L. Samantray, learned Additional Government Advocate. The other counsel for the petitioners adopted the submissions of Mr. Panda, learned amicus curiae.

4. It was the submission of Mr. Panda and Mr. Dash learned counsel that there is no bar in the NDPS Act for entertaining applications under Section – 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C for interim release during pendency of the trial for which the power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr. P.C could be invoked for interim release of such vehicles. They had also submitted that in many of the cases, the owner is not an accused in the case but the vehicles seized during investigation are left lying in open in the Police Station or Excise Office premises, exposed to the vagaries of weather and miscreants. As a result the vehicles get damaged and sometimes its parts are also stolen. So by the time of conclusion of the trial and/or the confiscation proceedings, the value of the vehicle has gone down substantially which does not benefit the State or the owner. Often the owners who are not accused in the case and even where the vehicle has been utilised for carrying contraband inspite of precautions taken by them , have to suffer pecuniary loss due to damage to the vehicles. They have also submitted that if the vehicles are released in the interim, pending finalization of the proceedings, imposing suitable conditions, the interest of the prosecution as well as the owner will be protected.

5. The learned counsel for the State did not dispute the contention that there was no prohibition in the NDPS Act for interim release of the vehicle during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or criminal case. But he had submitted as the Legislature had not included any provision for interim release of the vehicle in the NDPS Act, which is a special enactment and as there was a provision in the NDPS Act for confiscation of the vehicle, the provision would be rendered redundant and the trial of the case would be hampered, if the interim release of a vehicle would be allowed during pendency of the trial. It was also his submission that the vehicle may again be used for similar purpose, which would defeat the aims and objection of the enactment of the NDPS Act.

6. The learned counsel had relied on a number of decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in support of their submissions.

7. After the reference had been heard and reserved for judgment but before we could deliver the judgment answering the reference, the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwaji Dey vs. State of Assam: 2025 INSC 32: 2025 SCC Online SC 40 has delivered a judgment on 07.01.2025, dealing with the identical question, in the application filed by the owner of a vehicle for interim release of the vehi