SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
Vijay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM No. 844 of 2025, CRA-S No. 4055 of 2024
Decided On : 15-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Puran Singh Hundal, Vikramjeet Singh, Gursahib Singh Hundal, Arshpreet Kaur, Subhash Godara

Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act must follow the prescribed procedural safeguards; failure to provide a hearing renders the order illegal.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 60 and 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 452 - Release and confiscation of a vehicle used in an NDPS case - The court held that the vehicle can only be confiscated post-trial following due process as mandated by Section 63 of NDPS Act - The procedure for confiscation was not followed, breaching principles of natural justice by denying opportunity for hearing - Therefore, the confiscation order was deemed illegal and unsustainable. (Paras 19, 14, 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Application of NDPS Act - The NDPS Act allows seizure of vehicles but specifies a defined procedure for confiscation - The provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable to seizure must align with the NDPS Act to ensure consistency. (Paras 3, 6, 18)

Facts of the case:
The applicant-appellant sought a stay on the confiscation of a vehicle used in the transport of narcotics, arguing that the trial court's order of confiscation was passed without following mandatory procedures, specifically the failure to allow for a hearing as per the NDPS Act. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the confiscation order lacked legal basis as it breached procedural safeguards, primarily denying the applicant the right to be heard before confiscation. (Paras 19, 10, 17)

Issues: The issues addressed include whether the vehicle can be confiscated without proper adherence to the legal processes outlined in the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 60 and 63, and the impact of the applicant's right to a fair hearing on the confiscation order. (Paras 11, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the process of confiscation must strictly adhere to the provisions set out in Section 63 of the NDPS Act, and any order that circumvents this process is illegal. (Paras 14, 19)

Result: The confiscation order was set aside as illegal. (Paras 19)

Table of Content
1. legal provisions for the release of seized vehicles. (Para 1)
2. seizures under the ndps act and cr.p.c. provisions (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. state's opposition based on applicant's conviction (Para 5)
4. judicial notice on vehicle custody from superior judgments (Para 6 , 8)
5. confiscation processes and hearing requirements in ndps act (Para 7 , 10 , 15)
6. confiscation cannot occur before trial completion (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
7. procedural safeguards in the context of harsher penalties (Para 14 , 18)
8. requirements for procedural fairness in confiscation. (Para 16)
9. order of confiscation declared illegal and unsustainable (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. Present application has been filed under Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), Section 498 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of BNSS for staying the confiscation of car bearing registration No. HR-25C-9870, Swift, white shade, which has already been released on superdari by learned trial Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX AND CONTENTIONS

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-appellant contends, inter alia, that in light of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) (now BNSS) shall apply to the seizure of any article or vehicle, provided they are not repugnant to the provisions of NDPS Act. It is argued that while the NDPS Act imposes a specific bar on the release of a seized vehicle, provisions of Sections 451 , 452, and 457 of Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Therefore, in view of the enabling provision contained in Section 51 of NDPS Act, these provisions must be applied to all cases of seizure and confiscation. Section 51 of NDPS Act reads as follows:

    “51. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures” - The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures under this Act.”

3. Further, Sections 451 & 452 of Cr.P.C., which are relevant for the adjudication of this application, read as follows: -

    “Section 451 - Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

    (i) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

    Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, “property” includes--

    (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody;

    (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

    Section 452 - Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

    (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.

    (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top