CONFISCATION OF VEHICLES UNDER POISON, OPIUM AND DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW
CONFISCATION OF
VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCES UNDER THE Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
SC Appeal No 249/2017- SC SPL LA NO 231/2017 CA PHC APN 04/2017 – HC Monaragala 79/2014
This Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court revolves around the confiscation of a vehicle under the Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The appellant, W.M. Piyal Senadheera, was the registered owner of the vehicle that was used by his brother [Accused] to commit the offences of possession and trafficking Cannabis Sativa weighing 106 kg and 105 grams.
Background.
The relevant provision
that deals with vehicle confiscation is Section 79 of the Poisons, Opium and
Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act No. 13 of 1984 is as follows…
CHAPTER 549
POISONS,
OPIUM, AND DANGEROUS DRUGS Forfeiture.
[ 11,13 of 1984]
79. (1) Where any
person is convicted of an offence against this Ordinance or any regulation made
thereunder the court shall order that all or any articles in respect of which
the offence was committed and any boat, vessel, vehicle, aircraft or airborne
craft or equipment which has been used for the conveyance of such article
shall, by reason of such conviction, be forfeited to the State.
(2) Any property
forfeited to the State under subsection (1) shall
(a) if no appeal has been preferred to the Court of Appeal against the relevant conviction, vest absolutely in the State with effect from the dale on which the period prescribed for preferring an appeal against such conviction expires;
(b) if an appeal has
been preferred to the Court of Appeal against the relevant conviction, vest
absolutely in the State with effect from the date on which such conviction is
affirmed on appeal.
In this subsection
" relevant conviction" means the conviction in consequence of which
any property is forfeited to the State under subsection (1).
The appellant's
application for revision was in relation to the Order of the High Court, which
refused to release the vehicle bearing No. SP PE 1214 to the appellant. The
High Court's decision to confiscate the vehicle was challenged on the grounds
that the appellant had no knowledge of the offense and had taken all necessary
precautions to prevent the vehicle's use in illegal activities.
Decision of the High Court
The High Court had
applied an additional legal burden on the appellant by importing provisions
from other statutes, specifically section 40 of the Forest Ordinance and
section 3A of the Animals Act. The appellant's counsel argued that the learned
Judge of the High Court erred in imposing this additional requirement, which
was not stipulated in the Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. The
appellant's counsel contended that a literal interpretation of the statute
should have been applied and that the vehicle should not be subject to
confiscation.
Analysis of the Supreme Court and Decision
The Supreme Court
considered the appellant's main submission that, according to section 79 of the
Poisons Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act No. 13 of 1984, there is no
requirement for the owner of a vehicle to prove that they took all necessary
precautions to prevent the use of the vehicle for the commission of an offense.
The court found that the High Court had indeed erred by imposing an additional
requirement on the appellant, which was not stipulated in the Act.
The Supreme Court
emphasized that the law must be interpreted literally, and additional burdens
should not be imported from other statutes unless explicitly mentioned. The
court also noted that the latest amendment made to the Poisons Opium and
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance is Act No. 41 of 2022, but it did not affect the
relevant provisions in this case.
Binding Law
Stated by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
decision clarified that under section 79 of the Poisons Opium and Dangerous
Drugs (Amendment) Act No. 13 of 1984, the owner of a vehicle is not required to
prove that they took all necessary precautions to prevent its use for the
commission of an offense. The ruling handed down by Court now serves as binding
law, ensuring that owners of vehicles confiscated under this Poisons Opium and
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance are not subjected to additional legal burdens not
specified in the legislation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court
allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order of confiscation, and
ordered the release of the vehicle to the appellant. This judgment reinforces
the principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted as written and
that additional requirements should not be imposed without clear legislative
authority.
The judgment of the
Supreme Court conveys a powerful message that the process of confiscation
should only be employed when there is an unmistakable and explicit mandate in
the law to deprive a person of their right to hold property used in the
commission of an offense. This principle aligns closely with the fundamental
right and liberty to hold property.
The right to property is a cornerstone of personal freedom and economic stability. It ensures that individuals can acquire, use, and transfer property without undue interference. This right, however, is not absolute and can be restricted under certain conditions, such as when the property is involved in unlawful activities. Nevertheless, any such restriction must be clearly defined and justified by law.
Therefore, the judgment reinforces the principle that the deprivation of property rights must be the exception rather than the rule, invoked only under clear and specific legal circumstances. This approach protects individuals' property rights while allowing the state to take necessary actions against the misuse of property in the commission of offenses.
JUDGMENT WHERE CONFISCATION IS INFERRED FROM LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE GIVING EXTENDED MEANING
TO READ ALL 3 JUDGMENTS ON COFISCATION CLICK HERE
Comments
Post a Comment