Jasveer Singh vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 6329 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Jasveer Singh vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010065072023




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/13/2023

            JASVEER SINGH
            SON OF DEVA SINGH,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BADA BOSENA,
            TEHSIL- BILASPUR,
            POST OFFICE- CHANDELA,
            POLICE STATION- BILASPUR,
            DISTRICT- RAMPUR,
            STATE- UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA,
            PIN- 244921.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
            DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
            GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
            DISPUR, GUWAHATI,
            PIN- 781006.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. T DEURI, MR. D KONWAR,MS. D SONOWAL

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                       ORDER

Date : 26.08.2025

1. Heard Mr. T. Deori, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Devi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jasveer Singh, impugning judgment and order, dated 25.01.2023 passed in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 10/2021 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kokrajhar had directed that the vehicle bearing Registration No. UK-06-6B-2253 which was seized in connection with the said case to be confiscated and appropriated to the State Government.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and he had entered into an agreement to sale the said vehicle to one Harjinder Singh, son of Daulat Singh who had aged that he would pay the remaining 53 installments to the finance company at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per month.

4. He, however, submits that the process of sale was not completed and the petitioner is still the registered owner of the said vehicle.

5. He further submits that in connection with NDPS Case No. 10/2021, the said vehicle was seized as contraband of 52 kgs of suspected ganja was recovered from the said vehicle.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the charge sheet only one accused namely, Jaswinder Singh, who was the driver of the Page No.# 3/6

seized vehicle, was charged sheeted and it is he only who faced the trial.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned judgement dated 25.01.2023 passed in Special NDPS Case No. 10/2021, the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar had acquitted the sole accused person. However, by the same judgement, in paragraph No. 18, the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar directed, the above-mentioned vehicle of the petitioner to be confiscated and appropriated to the State Government.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the sole ground for directing the confiscation of the said vehicle was that the petitioner's prayer for seeking custody of the said vehicle was earlier rejected by order dated 07.12.2021 and 05.02.2022 on the ground that he had stated that he sold the vehicle to the charge-sheeted accused Harjinder Singh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order has erroneously mentioned therein that the Harjinder Singh was also charge-sheeted whereas the charge-sheet clearly shows that it was laid against one accused person, namely, Jasvinder Singh who has been acquitted by the impugned order.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner before directing the confiscation of his vehicle.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was used for carrying the contraband without his knowledge and, therefore, the same is not liable to be confiscated under Section 60 (3) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

11. He also submits that as per the proviso 2 Sub-clause (2) of the Section 63 of the NDPS Act provides that no order of confiscation of any article or a thing can be made without hearing any person who may claim right thereto and Page No.# 4/6

the evidence if any which he provides in respect of his claim.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard before passing the order of the confiscation which is in violation of the statutory requirement of Section 63 of the NDPS Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for hearing of the matter afresh as per the mandate of law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan" reported in 2024 0 Supreme SC 909.

13. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate, Ms. M. Devi has submitted that though, the State Respondent have not filed any affidavit-in- opposition in this case however, she has been informed that in pursuant to the impugned judgment, confiscation procedure has already initiated by the competent authority.

14. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record.

15. It appears that the present petitioner was not an accused in the case in which his vehicle was confiscated. It also appears from record that as on date his name still appears in the Registration Certificate of the seized vehicle.

16. Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides as follows:

"63. Procedure in making confiscations.--

(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.

Page No.# 5/6

(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act appears to be liable to confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who committed the offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability, and may order confiscation accordingly:

Provided that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim:

Provided further that if any such article or thing, other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale."

17. The plain reading of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985 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 made claim any right thereto.

18. In the instant case, the petitioner's claim was rejected mainly on the ground that on earlier occasion while seeking custody of the seized vehicle, the prayer for custody was rejected on the ground that he had already sold the vehicle to someone else.

19. However, it is apparent from the record that while passing the impugned order for confiscation of the seized vehicle, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forth his case before the Trial Court.

20. Under such circumstances, it appears that the impugned order has infringed the procedural requirement of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Page No.# 6/6

the same is liable to be set aside.

21. For the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order, to the extent, it directs confiscation of vehicle bearing Registration No. UK-06-6B-2253, is hereby set aside.

22. The Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard and thereafter after considering the same shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

23. The petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the Trial Court in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of this order to give him an opportunity of being heard so far as the issue of confiscation of aforementioned vehicle is concerned.

Once such an application comes on record, the Trial Court shall proceed to hear the applicant and pass fresh order as expeditiously as possible thereafter.

24. With the above observations, this writ petition is, hereby, disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant