In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that upheld the confiscation of a vehicle involved in a narcotics case. The apex court granted the appeal filed by the vehicle’s owner, who argued that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the confiscation order was passed.
Case Background
The case stems from an FIR registered in 2017 at Shambhugarh Police Station, District Bhilwara, under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The vehicle, a dumper registered to the appellant, was seized during the investigation. Two co-accused were arrested and later acquitted by the trial court. The trial court, however, ordered the confiscation and auction of the dumper without providing a hearing to the appellant, who had been absconding at the time.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized the procedural requirements under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a hearing for any person claiming a right to the seized property before an order of confiscation can be made. The court noted that since the appellant was the registered owner of the dumper, he had the right to be heard before the final order was passed.
Judgment Details
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order dated February 22, 2021, concerning the confiscation and auction of the dumper. The trial court is now directed to provide the appellant an opportunity to present his case. The appellant must file an application within six weeks, and the trial court is to pass a fresh order within two weeks of hearing the appellant.
Written by- Rishav raj.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments