The Bombay High Court has clarified that mere ownership of a vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act does not entitle its owner to interim custody. The judgment reinforces that statutory deterrence under Section 60(3) requires the owner to affirmatively establish absence of knowledge or connivance before release can be considered.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Apurva Suresh Khambaswadkar, is the registered owner of a TATA ZEST vehicle seized during a raid at a ginning factory in Barshitakli, Akola. The vehicle was found parked outside the premises where a large quantity of Mephedrone - 5.5 kilograms - was recovered. The accused persons involved in the manufacturing and transportation of the drug were five individuals, none of whom were the applicant or his Power of Attorney holder, Shaikh Amin.
Procedural History
- 24 October 2024: Police conducted a raid based on secret information; vehicle seized from the scene.
- Crime No. 532/2025: Registered under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, along with relevant provisions of the BNS.
- August 8, 2025: Special Judge, NDPS Court, Akola, rejected the applicant’s application for interim custody of the vehicle.
- February 2026: Criminal Revision Application filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought interim custody of the seized vehicle, arguing that he was neither an accused nor connected to the offence, and that his Power of Attorney holder, though in possession of the vehicle, had no involvement in the crime.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act permits the release of a seized conveyance to its registered owner who claims no knowledge or connivance in its use for transporting narcotics, without requiring any evidentiary substantiation at the interim stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal, and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam to argue that ownership alone, coupled with absence of criminal charge, entitles the owner to interim custody. It was contended that the vehicle was in the physical custody of the Power of Attorney holder, a labourer from Akola, with no demonstrable link to the applicant, a businessman from Thane. The applicant’s lack of involvement, they argued, made continued seizure unjust and disproportionate.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the vehicle was directly involved in the commission of a serious commercial drug offence. The fact that the vehicle was found at the scene with contraband being loaded into it created a strong presumption of its use in illicit activity. The State emphasized that the applicant’s claim of non-involvement was speculative and unsupported by any documentary or testimonial evidence. The apprehension of future misuse, given the scale of the offence, justified retention of custody pending trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 451 and 457 of the CrPC and Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, referencing the precedent in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Shaikh Abdul Karim, which affirmed that interim custody may be granted to innocent owners, provided the vehicle remains available for confiscation if required.
However, the Court distinguished this case by emphasizing the statutory burden under Section 60(3): "...unless the owner... proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent... and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use."
"...the question whether the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance is a question of fact to be determined after evidence, if any, is produced in proper inquiry. It may not be safe always to accept such a plea as a gospel truth to give interim custody of the vehicle to such a person."
The Court noted that the applicant offered no proof - no documentation of vehicle usage, no evidence of the Power of Attorney holder’s independent access, no explanation for why a Thane-based owner entrusted a high-value vehicle to an Akola-based labourer. The mere assertion of non-involvement, without corroboration, could not override the statutory presumption of liability.
The Court further held that the purpose of Section 60(3) is not merely punitive but deterrent. Allowing release on mere assertion would undermine the legislative intent to deprive offenders of tools of trade and discourage complicity by owners.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act imposes a burden on the owner to prove absence of knowledge or connivance before interim custody can be granted. Mere non-involvement in the chargesheet, without evidentiary support, is insufficient. The vehicle remains in police custody pending trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Knowledge and Connivance Must Be Proven, Not Asserted
- Practitioners must now prepare affidavits, transaction records, or witness statements to substantiate claims of non-involvement.
- Oral assertions or uncorroborated affidavits will not suffice at the interim custody stage.
- Courts will treat the statutory presumption under Section 60(3) as rebuttable only upon credible evidence.
Ownership Alone Is Not a Shield
- Registered ownership of a vehicle does not automatically entitle the owner to its return.
- If the vehicle was present at the scene of a drug offence and used for transportation, the burden shifts to the owner to explain the circumstances.
- Courts will scrutinize the relationship between owner and possessor - especially when there is no apparent nexus.
Interim Custody Is Conditional, Not Absolute
- Release of seized conveyances remains possible, but only if the owner demonstrates:
- No prior knowledge of the vehicle’s use for narcotics
- No negligence in permitting access to third parties
- Reasonable precautions taken to prevent misuse
- Courts may impose conditions such as deposit of security, surrender of keys, or undertaking not to transfer the vehicle.
