In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has strongly criticized the prolonged neglect of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, emphasizing that such property must be preserved rather than left to deteriorate in indefinite police custody.
The ruling came in response to a Criminal Revision Petition challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the release of a confiscated vehicle.
🚘 Court’s Observation: Preventing Unnecessary Damage to Seized Vehicles
A single-judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi observed that vehicles left unattended for prolonged periods suffer structural degradation, mechanical wear, and a significant loss of economic value, making them unfit for future use.
The judge stated:
“The law does not permit indefinite retention of property when its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice.”
Justice Panigrahi further emphasized that vehicles, if seized, should either be put to proper use or returned to the rightful owner under legal conditions, rather than being left to rot in government custody.
⚖️ Case Background: The Dispute Over Vehicle Retention
The case involved a vehicle seized alongside contraband, leading to the arrest of the accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
- 🔹 The prosecution argued that the vehicle was an instrument of crime, used for narcotics transport, and hence could not be released.
- 🔹 It cited Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, stating that such vehicles must be disposed of through legal procedures rather than returned to the owner.
- 🔹 Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Mohanlal, the prosecution maintained that vehicles used in drug-related offences must be confiscated and auctioned off rather than returned during the trial.
⚖️ Arguments & Court’s Reasoning
- 🔹 The petitioner’s counsel countered that the vehicle owner was not involved in the alleged crime and should not be penalized simply because the vehicle was misused by others.
- 🔹 They argued that Section 52-A does not impose an absolute ban on releasing seized vehicles, and courts have the discretion to impose conditions for their return.
🛑 The Court’s Stand:
- ✔️ The vehicle had been in police custody for over a year, exposed to extreme weather conditions, leading to gradual deterioration.
- ✔️ Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, the court reaffirmed that indefinite retention of vehicles serves no legal purpose.
🚗 Final Judgment: Vehicle Released with Strict Conditions
In a decisive ruling, the Orissa High Court ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions, including:
- ✅ Verification of original documents by the police.
- ✅ Strict prohibition on altering the vehicle’s color, engine number, or chassis number.
- ✅ Compliance with additional legal stipulations set by the authorities.
This ruling is expected to have wide-ranging implications for cases involving seized property under the NDPS Act, ensuring that innocent vehicle owners do not suffer undue financial losses while legal proceedings continue.
📌 Significance of the Ruling
- 🔹 Protecting Property Rights: Ensures that innocent owners do not lose valuable property due to prolonged legal proceedings.
- 🔹 Preventing Economic Loss: Vehicles left in government custody suffer massive depreciation, which this ruling seeks to prevent.
- 🔹 Balancing Law & Justice: The ruling reinforces that seizing vehicles indefinitely should not be used as a punitive measure unless the owner is directly implicated.
This landmark judgment by the Orissa High Court sets a critical precedent in NDPS cases, emphasizing the fair treatment of property rights while maintaining the integrity of law enforcement.