NDPS vehicle confiscation power rests with trial courts, not Drug Disposal Committees, rules Supreme Court; acquitted owner gets lorry released

A lorry bearing registration no. TN-57-AQ-2165, manufactured by Ashok Leyland, was intercepted in Tamil Nadu and allegedly found carrying 66 kg of ganja.

Four persons were prosecuted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), while the lorry was seized as the conveyance allegedly used for transporting the contraband.

The Trial Court acquitted all accused on grounds including discrepancies in the arrest memo and crime number, absence of proper safe-custody records, unexplained transportation during pandemic restrictions, and delay in forwarding samples to the laboratory.

It also directed release of the lorry to its owner after expiry of the appeal period.

After the appeal period expired, the appellant applied for release of the vehicle.

The Trial Court rejected the application, and the High Court affirmed that decision, holding that release or disposal had to proceed through the Drug Disposal Committee (“DDC”) under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

Whether a vehicle seized in an NDPS case can be released by the criminal court under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, or whether it must necessarily be dealt with by the DDC under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules

Whether the criminal court is required to determine the vehicle’s liability to confiscation under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act after the accused are convicted, acquitted, or discharged

Whether, in the circumstances of the present case—particularly the acquittal of all accused and serious defects in the prosecution case—the appellant was entitled to release of the vehicle

Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act requires the court trying the offence to decide, upon conviction, acquittal, or discharge, whether an article or conveyance seized under the Act is liable to confiscation under Sections 60, 61, or 62, and empowers that court to order confiscation.

Under Section 60, a conveyance used for carrying the offending substance may be confiscated, subject to the owner’s defence under Section 60(3) that it was used without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and despite the owner having taken reasonable precautions.

The confiscation proceeding is distinct from the criminal prosecution: acquittal does not automatically require release because confiscation is determined on the preponderance of probabilities, whereas criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court followed Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, holding that the trial court may invoke Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, or analogous BNSS provisions, for interim custody of a seized vehicle and that confiscation must be decided by the court, not independently by the DDC.

Although Rule 16 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 permits disposal of conveyances under Section 52A, that power must operate with the permission and supervision of the competent criminal court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on Nahoorkani v. State was inconsistent with the principle laid down in Biswajit Dey.

Section 63(1) expressly places the power to determine confiscation in the court trying the NDPS offence; consequently, the DDC cannot independently sell or otherwise dispose of the vehicle while bypassing the court’s statutory jurisdiction.

At the same time, the court may order interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC to prevent deterioration and wastage of the vehicle during or after the proceedings.

In the present case, no confiscation proceedings had been initiated during the trial or immediately after the acquittal, and the Trial Court had already directed release of the lorry.

The acquittal rested on serious evidentiary and procedural deficiencies, including the appearance of a crime number in an arrest memo prepared before registration of the FIR, inadequate safe-custody documentation, unexplained circumstances surrounding interception, delay in sample transmission, and other inconsistencies concerning seizure, weighment, search, recording of information, and sampling.

These circumstances rendered the interception and prosecution case sufficiently suspect to justify release of the vehicle, subject only to verification of the appellant’s ownership.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and the subsequent Trial Court order refusing release of the lorry.

It held that the vehicle was to be released to the appellant, and directed that, if the lorry had already been transmitted to the DDC, the DDC must release it forthwith.

The Court clarified that confiscation under Section 63(1) is for the criminal court to decide, while disposal by the DDC under the 2022 Rules requires the court’s permission and cannot displace the court’s statutory power over confiscation.