Trial Court, Not Drug Disposal Committee, Decides Confiscation of Seized Vehicles in NDPS Cases: Supreme Court

A lorry was intercepted and 66 kg of ganja allegedly recovered; three occupants and a fourth man were prosecuted under the NDPS Act (para 3). On 20.01.2023 the trial court at Pudukottai acquitted all the accused on four grounds, including a crime number appearing on an arrest memo prepared before the FIR, and directed release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period (paras 4, 7). No confiscation proceedings were started (para 7). Long after that period, the owner's application for release was rejected; the Madras High Court affirmed, holding that release had to go through the Drug Disposal Committee and, following Nahoorkani, that the court lacked jurisdiction (paras 5-6).

The Court held that Nahoorkani runs counter to Biswajit Dey, under which a vehicle can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial, after hearing the owner, and not if the owner proves it was used without his knowledge or connivance (para 8). Confiscation and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof, so an acquittal does not by itself mean release (para 10). Section 63(1) gives the power of confiscation to the court, not the DDC; although Rule 16 of the 2022 Rules covers disposal of conveyances, the Rules apply only with the court's permission, and the DDC cannot independently sell a vehicle pending the proceedings (paras 11-12). Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, or the analogous BNSS provisions, remain available (para 13). If no one seeks custody, the investigating officer may seek a reference to the DDC, but only after notice and a hearing to the owner, and sale proceeds go to the court (para 14). Here the grounds of acquittal and other inconsistencies made the interception itself suspect, and the trial court's release order was justified (paras 15-16).