CASE TITLE : BISHWAJIT DEY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan observed that
“However, the seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said.
Also, the Court clarified that
“this Court is of the view that the seized vehicles can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of the trial when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before passing an order of confiscation.”, the court said.
Background
The Court was hearing the appeal filed against the Gauhati High Court’s decision upholding the trial court’s decision refusing to allow interim release of the Appellant’s seized truck under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) doesn’t prohibit the interim release of vehicles that are seized for allegedly transporting contraband. The Court added that the seized vehicle can be released under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.
