NDPS Act| Vehicles Turn To Junk, Value Goes Down The Drain: P&H High Court Slams Idle Confiscation, Orders Release
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the release of a truck seized in an NDPS case on financial bonds, emphasizing that keeping vehicles idle for prolonged periods leads to deterioration, economic loss, and serves no useful purpose.
Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "...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 and, along with this, devaluing it to junk. 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, and if not monetized before its value erodes, everything goes down the drain without recovering even a fraction of the cost of the long lasting pollutants generated in the entire process, and thus, diminishing the entire human effort."
Thus, when the confiscated vehicles are kept inside and outside the compounds of the Police Stations or other places, apart from being the eyesores, all and everyone become the losers, starting from our planet that suffered the irreparable loss, the equity provider, the financier, the purchaser, and even the State, because of the erosion in the value of the machine, it added.
The application was filed by Gurjinder Singh, which had been seized in connection with an FIR registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Chandigarh, under Sections 15, 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The case arose from a 2018 incident involving recovery of 252.600 kilograms of poppy husk from the said truck. The occupants of the vehicle were apprehended, and during investigation, Gurjinder Singh was also arraigned as an accused.
He was subsequently convicted by the Special Judge, Patiala, and the trial court ordered confiscation of the truck to the State on the ground that it was used for transporting contraband.
While his appeal against conviction is pending before the High Court—and his sentence stands suspended—the present application sought interim release of the vehicle on superdari.
The primary issue before the Court was whether the seized vehicle, already ordered to be confiscated by the trial court, could be released during the pendency of the appeal.
The applicant contended that he was not afforded adequate hearing before confiscation and the vehicle was lying unused and deteriorating, He was willing to furnish security equivalent to its market value.
The High Court noted that the appeal against conviction is still pending and the possibility of acquittal cannot be ruled out. It clarified that the present consideration was limited to interim release and not the validity of the conviction.
Confiscation Not Absolute Pending Appeal
The bench said that 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. 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 §60 of the NDPS shall not apply," the Court said.
Vehicle Decay and Economic Loss
It further observed that, "the confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act is for dismantling the vehicles that were used to transport drugs, but rather to inflict financial loss on their owners to dissuade their hiring/usage."
The Court said however, 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.
Purpose of Confiscation
The Court added that, "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 and, along with this, devaluing it to junk."
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, and if not monetized before its value erodes, everything goes down the drain without recovering even a fraction of the cost of the long lasting pollutants generated in the entire process, and thus, diminishing the entire human effort, it added.
Vehicle Not the Offender
The Court emphasised that 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. And there is no assurance that, after the confiscation, the vehicle, when resold by the Government, will not again be used for transportation.
As such, 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, it added.
Speaking for bench Justice Chitkara noted that the truck in question has been in a godown for the last so many years. The applicant is willing to give an undertaking that, in the event the confiscation order is upheld, he undertakes to pay the current market value of the vehicle, together with interest, as directed by this Court.
Environmental and Economic Perspective
The Court also highlighted the broader impact, noting that allowing valuable machinery to decay wastes resources, energy, and economic value.
The bench noted that there is no absolute bar under the NDPS Act against interim release of seized vehicles and Courts retain powers under procedural law to order custody or release of property during trial or appeal.
The Court allowed the application and directed release of the vehicle subject to strict conditions, including submission of valuation report of the truck, Furnishing of personal bond and one surety bond equivalent to the vehicle's current market value.
It also asked for the undertaking to pay the assessed value along with 6% annual compound interest if confiscation is ultimately upheld and filing of affidavit confirming ownership and supporting documents.
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, with Mr. Vinayak Atre, Advocate, and Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Title: Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.