Back
Supreme Court Rules of NDPS Seized Vehicles Requires Court Order, Not DDC
|
In a significant judgment clarifying the procedure for dealing with vehicles seized under the ), the Supreme Court has held that the power to confiscate such conveyances vests exclusively with the trial court under , and not with the . The Court also directed the release of a lorry that had been seized in connection with an NDPS case after the accused were acquitted.
Case Background
The case arose from the seizure of a lorry (Ashok Leyland, registration TN-57-AQ-2165) on , allegedly carrying 66 kg of ganja. Three occupants were arrested and later a fourth accused was arrested. After trial, the , acquitted all accused on multiple grounds, including discrepancies in the arrest memo, failure to maintain proper records, and delay in sending samples. The trial court had also directed release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period.
However, when the owner, R Manimaran, moved the trial court after the appeal period expired, his application was rejected. The affirmed this rejection, holding that release of a vehicle in an NDPS case must proceed through the DDC under and the . The High Court relied on its earlier decision in , which held that Section 63 modifies and that the court lacks jurisdiction to deal with seized conveyances.
Legal Questions Before Supreme Court
The key issues were: 1. Whether the power to confiscate a vehicle seized under the lies with the trial court or the DDC. 2. Whether the court can exercise its general powers under for of such vehicles. 3. What procedure should be followed when the owner does not seek custody.
Arguments and Analysis
The appellant argued that the trial court had already ordered release of the vehicle, and the High Court erred in rejecting it. The respondent () contended that the DDC must handle the matter.
The Supreme Court, in agreement with its earlier decision in (), held that under Section 63 is to be decided by the court after the trial, irrespective of conviction or acquittal. The court noted that make certain articles liable to , but the court must pass an order under . provides an exception if the owner proves and .
The Court also examined the , particularly which allows disposal of conveyances. It held that while the DDC can dispose of seized items, the power to confiscate remains with the court. Therefore, the DDC cannot independently proceed without court orders. The Court clarified that there is no bar on invoking (or analogous provisions of ) for of vehicles in NDPS cases, as held in Biswajit Dey .
Key Observations
The Supreme Court made several important observations:
"There can be no dispute that in the present case no such proceedings were initiated in the course of the trial or immediately after the judgment was delivered on ."
"We are in full agreement with the view taken in Biswajit Dey since sub-section (1) of Section 63 provides that whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to under ."
"A conveyance also can be disposed of under the Rules of , but the power to confiscate being with the Court, it would not be proper for the DDC to independently proceed against the vehicle and dispose of that by sale or otherwise in auction, pending the criminal proceedings, without proper orders from the Court."
"If none appears to seek custody of the vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O may move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for , to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle and afford an before such reference is made."
"Statutorily the power of is on the Court, trying the offence."
The Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court that had rejected the release of the vehicle. It directed that the lorry be released to the appellant, R Manimaran. If the vehicle had already been transmitted to the DDC, it was to be released forthwith. The Court noted the compelling circumstances: the acquittal was based on serious , and the entire interception appeared suspect.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the primacy of the trial court in matters of under the . It provides a clear procedure for dealing with seized vehicles: the court can order under provisions; if no one claims the vehicle, the IO can seek reference to DDC, but only after hearing the owner; any sale proceeds must be deposited with the court pending final decision. This ensures and protects the owner's right to be heard.
