The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that vehicles seized in NDPS cases should ordinarily be released on adequate financial bonds rather than being left to deteriorate in police stations and government yards during lengthy trials and appeals.
The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur asserted that confiscation under the NDPS Act was meant to impose financial consequences on those involved in drug trafficking and not to destroy valuable assets through prolonged neglect.
Referring to the economic and environmental costs of allowing seized vehicles to decay, the Bench asserted: “Needless to say, when any confiscated vehicle is kept out of use by placing it in a parking lot, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Eventually, this vehicle will also become unfit for the road and will have to be dismantled, turning it into scrap,” the court said.
In an out-of-the ordinary reflection on environmental sustainability, the Bench asserted every vehicle carried a history of resource extraction, manufacturing and energy consumption. “The vehicle’s debris is not without a history: it starts with the excavation of minerals, the journey to refineries and smelters, the production line, and sale; enroute consuming so much toil, time, energy, carbon footprints, space, and money,” the judges observed.
The court added that if such assets were not monetised before their value eroded, “everything goes down the drain”, resulting in losses for owners, financiers and even the State. The Bench added the crime was committed by the driver of the vehicle or by the person who kept drugs in the vehicle, “not by the vehicle itself.”
In a message to the subordinate judiciary, the Bench said it “earnestly believes” that district courts dealing with such applications should not reject requests for release in a mechanical manner where confiscation is not mandated by statute or judicial orders.
In its detailed order, the Bench observed that confiscation could not be viewed independently of the outcome of criminal proceedings. The court observed that conviction of an accused transporting narcotics might support confiscation proceedings, but the position could change if the conviction was later overturned in appeal.
“The conviction of the accused in the trial, who was transporting the drugs in a vehicle, has a bearing on the confiscation of the vehicle. However, there may be cases where none of the grounds for releasing the vehicle apply, and the trial results in an acquittal because the vehicle’s recovery cannot be proved. In such cases, there would certainly be no mandate to confiscate the vehicle,” the Bench observed.
The court further pointed out that even a conviction by a trial court did not attain finality until appellate remedies are exhausted. “Hypothetically, another scenario arises when a person is convicted by the trial Court but files an appeal before a higher Court. The conviction attains finality only when the appeal is decided. If, on appeal, the conviction is set aside and the drugs are not found to have been recovered from the vehicle or are found to have been transported under a license the Court finds valid, then Section 60 of the NDPS shall not apply,” the Bench added. The provision outlines the rules for confiscating illicit drugs, associated materials, and the conveyances used to transport or hide them.
Questioning the conventional approach, the court observed that confiscation was not intended for dismantling vehicles, but for imposing financial loss on owners who facilitate the transportation of narcotics. The consequences could become disproportionate in cases involving expensive assets such as aircraft, ships, helicopters or private trains.
“Consider a case in which drugs are transported in an airplane, a helicopter, a private train, or a ship. Confiscating such vehicles would have a devastating effect on owners’ finances, on the financial institutions that have hypothecated them by financing their purchases, on the infrastructure, and on commuters’ lives,” the Bench observed.
The court also questioned the logic of retaining vehicles indefinitely on the premise of preventing future misuse. “There is no assurance that, after the confiscation, the vehicle, when resold by the Government, will not again be used for transportation,” the judges noted.
Advocating an alternative mechanism, the Bench held that confiscated vehicles should ordinarily be released on financial bonds. “After the vehicles are confiscated, they must be released on financial bonds, which means that, if the vehicle is eventually confiscated, the owner shall pay an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as fixed by the Court under confiscation, along with a reasonable rate of interest, to be compounded annually,” the Judges observed.
The Court also laid down a detailed framework requiring applicants to furnish valuation reports, registration documents, affidavits of ownership and personal as well as surety bonds equivalent to the current market value of the vehicle. The bonds would secure payment of the vehicle’s value with six per cent annual compound interest in the event confiscation is eventually upheld.
The court also directed investigating agencies and police authorities to ensure prompt release of vehicles once the competent court passed the necessary orders.
