AP High Court Quashes Seizure Of Vehicle Allegedly Used For Transporting Drugs Over Non-Compliance Of Procedure Under NDPS Act
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a trial court order directing seizure of a vehicle allegedly used for transporting narcotic substances under the NDPS Act observing that the mandatory procedure including affording an opportunity to the owner to establish absence of knowledge or connivance had not been followed. Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 permits confiscation of a conveyance...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a trial court order directing seizure of a vehicle allegedly used for transporting narcotic substances under the NDPS Act observing that the mandatory procedure including affording an opportunity to the owner to establish absence of knowledge or connivance had not been followed.
Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 permits confiscation of a conveyance used for transporting narcotic substances unless the owner proves absence of knowledge or connivance, while Section 63 mandates that no confiscation order can be passed without giving the affected person an opportunity of hearing.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi held that the trial court order was passed without complying with the statutory safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act and said:
“The learned Special Court, by judgment dated 08.12.2008, ordered confiscation of the disputed vehicle, on the ground that it was used for transporting narcotic substances, while convicting the accused. However, a reading of the said judgment does not disclose that the learned Special Court followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. The impugned order merely states that M.O.8 – Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141 – used for transportation of narcotic substances, is ordered to be sold, and the sale proceeds confiscated to the State, after expiry of the appeal period.
Therefore, the impugned order indicates that the learned Special Court did not follow any procedure before passing the said order, particularly the procedure prescribed and contemplated under law, i.e., Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the order of confiscation… is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.”
The case arose from an appeal filed by the owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle confiscated by the Special Sessions Court while convicting the accused in an NDPS case. The appellant contended that the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance and argued that the Special Court confiscated the vehicle without issuing notice or providing any opportunity to adduce evidence in terms of Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
The State contended that the vehicle was used for transporting narcotic substances and therefore the confiscation order was justified upon conviction of the accused. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the judgment of the Special Court did not disclose compliance with the procedure contemplated under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
After examining the impugned judgment, the High Court found that the Special Court merely directed sale of the vehicle and confiscation of sale proceeds to the State without recording compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure or granting opportunity to the owner.
Holding that the confiscation order was unsustainable in law, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation order and remitted the matter to the Special Court for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to both sides in accordance with law.
Case Title: Neerudi Dhanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2009
Counsel for Appellant: Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy
Counsel for Respondents: C.P. Somayaji, Additional Public Prosecutor & A. Sai Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Click Here To Read/Download Order