Tarun Kumar Majhi vs The State of West Bengal
The present case titled “Tarun Kumar Majhi vs The State of West Bengal”, deals with the prolonged seizure of a vehicle in relation to a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 even when the owner/accused person of the vehicle has been discharged of the said offence. The appellant herein is an advocate whose vehicle was seized in 2017 in connection with case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the NDPS Act), the investigation got underway and upon perusal of a specific statement made by the Investigation Officer before the Trial Court, the Appellant was discharged from the said offence but his vehicle continued to be in the custody of the police forces.
The Trial court acquitted four out of the five accused persons in December 2020 however trial of one accused was pending as he had gone absconding. The Appellant approached the Trial Court under Section 452 of CrPC for the release of his vehicle, but the same request was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court, aggrieved by the same the Appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court through a revision petition, wherein the Court was pleased to quash the seizure order subject to a surety bond of Rs. 6,00,000/- to be furnished by the Appellant.
The Appellant has filed the Special Leave petition challenging the order of the High Court on two grounds , firstly as the appellant has been discharged of the offence in 2017 only and secondly that the value of the vehicle does not even amount to Rs. 6,00,000/- presently.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act for release of any seized vehicle till the pendency of the trial against any of the accused person. The Court further contended that to direct the Appellant not to sell the vehicle till the pendency of trial, would be extremely unfair as no owner can be directed to possess and own the vehicle indefinitely. The Court also held that Consequently, it is clarified that there is no restriction on the sale/transfer of the car and in the event, the Trial Court ultimately passes an order of confiscation of the Appellant’s vehicle, the Appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand) only, as even if the State were to sell the vehicle in question after confiscation, it would recover the said amount only.
The judgement raises judicial awareness about weighing the procedural protection of law against the basic rights of a person, particularly in instances where punishment persists longer than the prosecution case against an individual.