The Supreme Court has ruled that any order made under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) to confiscate a vehicle would be deemed illegal if it were issued without affording the vehicle owner an opportunity to be heard.

Citing Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the Court emphasized that an order for the confiscation of an article, including a vehicle, cannot be issued until at least one month has passed from the date of seizure, and it cannot be made without giving an opportunity for a hearing to any person who may assert a claim to ownership or rights over the seized item.

A panel consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra presided over the hearing of an appeal challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which had upheld the confiscation of a vehicle (specifically, a dumper) under the NDPS Act. The appeal was lodged by the registered owner of the said vehicle.

A case was registered against the appellant and two other accused for offenses under the NDPS Act. Subsequently, the appellant absconded, leading to the trial being conducted solely against the remaining two accused. Following the trial, the trial court acquitted the other two accused, granting them the benefit of doubt. However, the trial court also issued an order for the confiscation of the vehicle involved in the case.

Following the acquittal of the other two accused, the appellant was subsequently arrested but later released on bail. He contested the trial court's order for the confiscation of the vehicle, arguing that he had not been given an opportunity to present his case. However, the High Court dismissed his challenge, upholding the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court set-aside the directive for confiscation after observing that the owner had not been given a chance to be heard during the proceedings.

"The plain reading of Section 63 indicates that the court cannot order confiscation of an article until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto. It is true that at the time of the order of confiscation of the dumper, the appellant herein was not arrested. Had he been put to trial along with the other two co- accused, probably he would have submitted before the trial court why the confiscation order may not be passed."

The appellant was instructed to submit an application before the trial court requesting an opportunity to be heard concerning the confiscation. Once the application was filed, the trial court was mandated to make a decision within a timeframe of two weeks.

Case Title : Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan