The Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored the procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) while setting aside the confiscation of a vehicle used for transporting narcotic substances. The judgment holds that confiscation orders under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act must be passed only after affording the owner an opportunity to establish lack of knowledge or connivance, failing which the order is unsustainable in law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Neerudi Dhanamma, was the owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle (Registration No. AP 04 K 3141) seized by the police in connection with NDPS S.C. No. 14 of 2008. The vehicle was allegedly used for transporting narcotic substances. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, convicted the accused and ordered the confiscation of the vehicle vide judgment dated 08.12.2008.
Key Facts
- The disputed vehicle (Tata Sumo, Reg. No. AP 04 K 3141) was seized in connection with the transportation of narcotic substances.
- The appellant claimed she had no knowledge of the vehicle’s use for illegal purposes and was not involved in the offence.
- The Special Court did not issue any notice to the appellant or provide an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding her lack of knowledge or connivance.
- The confiscation order was passed solely on the ground that the vehicle was used for transporting narcotic substances, without following the procedure under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
Procedural History
- 2008: The vehicle was seized during the investigation of NDPS S.C. No. 14 of 2008.
- 08.12.2008: The Special Court convicted the accused and ordered the confiscation of the vehicle (M.O.8).
- Post-08.12.2008: The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the confiscation order.
- 29.04.2026: The High Court delivered the present judgment.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought the setting aside of the confiscation order and the return of the vehicle, contending that the Special Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was: Whether the confiscation of a vehicle under the NDPS Act can be sustained without affording the owner an opportunity to establish lack of knowledge or connivance, as mandated by Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act mandates that a vehicle used for transporting narcotic substances shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken.
- Section 63 of the NDPS Act prescribes the procedure for confiscation, requiring the court to decide the liability of confiscation after affording an opportunity to the owner to present evidence.
- The Special Court failed to issue any notice to the appellant or provide an opportunity to adduce evidence, rendering the confiscation order illegal and unsustainable.
- The appeal was maintainable under Section 36-C of the NDPS Act, read with Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which provides for appeals against confiscation orders.
For the Respondent
- The Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the Special Court did not follow the procedure under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act while passing the confiscation order.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the procedural requirements under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and observed:
"Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act clearly stipulates that a conveyance used for transporting narcotic substances shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance, and that all reasonable precautions were taken. Similarly, Section 63 mandates that the court shall decide the liability of confiscation only after affording an opportunity to the owner to present evidence.
The Court noted that the Special Court’s judgment did not disclose any compliance with these provisions. The confiscation order was passed mechanically, merely stating that the vehicle was used for transporting narcotic substances and ordering its sale, without any inquiry into the appellant’s knowledge or involvement.
The Court relied on the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that no order affecting the rights of a party can be passed without affording an opportunity of being heard. The failure to follow the procedure under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act rendered the confiscation order unsustainable in law.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. The matter was remanded to the Special Court for fresh consideration, with directions to:
- Follow the procedure under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
- Afford an opportunity to the appellant and the respondent-State to present evidence.
- Dispose of the matter within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confiscation Requires Strict Compliance with Procedural Safeguards
- Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act impose a mandatory duty on courts to afford the owner an opportunity to establish lack of knowledge or connivance before confiscating a vehicle.
- Practitioners must ensure that confiscation orders are not passed mechanically but are preceded by a proper inquiry as contemplated under the law.
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable
- The judgment reaffirms that no order affecting the rights of a party can be passed without affording an opportunity of being heard, even in cases involving confiscation under special statutes like the NDPS Act.
- Courts must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the statute, failing which the order is liable to be set aside.
Remand as a Remedy for Procedural Lapses
- Where procedural requirements are not followed, remand is an appropriate remedy to ensure justice.
- The Special Court has been directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, given the delay since 2008.
