Vehicles seized under NDPS Act must be preserved, not left to deteriorate indefinitely: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has strongly criticized the prolonged neglect of seized vehicles in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cases, asserting that such property must be preserved rather than left to deteriorate in indefinite custody.

The ruling came in response to a Criminal Revision Petition challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the release of a confiscated vehicle.

Court’s Observation

A single-judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi underscored the irreversible damage vehicles suffer when left unattended for extended periods.

"If left to the elements, a vehicle will inevitably suffer structural degradation, mechanical wear, and a substantial loss of economic value, rendering it unfit for future use," the court observed. 

Justice Panigrahi further emphasised that "the law does not permit indefinite retention of property when its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice."

Case Background

The vehicle in question was seized alongside contraband, and the arrest of accused individuals under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution argued that the vehicle was an instrument of crime, directly involved in narcotics transport, and thus, as per Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, it could not be released but had to be disposed of through legal procedures.

ALSO READ: Orissa High Court issues notice to government over APAAR ID mandate in school

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Mohanlal, the prosecution maintained that vehicles used in drug-related offences must be disposed of rather than returned during the trial.

Arguments and Court’s Reasoning

The petitioner’s counsel countered that the owner was not implicated in the crime and should not be penalized merely because the vehicle was misused by others. They argued that while Section 52-A governs the disposal of seized vehicles, it does not impose an absolute ban on their release.

Courts, they stated, retain discretion to impose conditions for the vehicle's return, ensuring both legal compliance and fairness.

The court noted that the vehicle had remained in police custody for over a year, exposed to sun, rain, and fluctuating weather conditions, causing its gradual deterioration. It further cited Supreme Court precedents, including Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, reaffirming that the indefinite retention of property serves no legal purpose.

ALSO READ: Daughter-in-law takes away pet dog over dowry dispute; Orissa High court imposes fine

Court’s Decision

In a decisive ruling, the High Court ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner under stringent conditions. These included verification of original documents by the police, a strict prohibition on altering the vehicle’s color or its engine and chassis numbers, and compliance with any additional legal stipulations.