2025 Supreme(SC) 1857

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Denash – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4613 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8698 of 2025)
Decided On : 27-10-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Release of seized vehicle on Supurdagi pending conclusion of trial – Confiscation, being a measure resulting in deprivation of property, must conform to basic tenets of natural justice and must be preceded with a prior hearing.
(2) Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or curtail substantive rights and procedural safeguards envisaged under parent legislation.
(3) Application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or mechanical formula – Each case must be examined in light of its peculiar facts and circumstances.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 60 and 63 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Rules 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 451 [Section 497 of BNSS] – Release of seized vehicle on Supurdagi pending conclusion of trial – While Rules of 2022 lay down procedure for initiation and disposal of seized articles, they are notably silent on rights of persons whose property is affected by such disposal – This omission assumes particular importance in cases where seized property is not a contraband per se but a conveyance or container belonging to a third party who may have no connection with seized contraband – Where owner is able to demonstrate that conveyance was used in violation of NDPS Act without his knowledge or connivance and that due diligence was exercised, vehicle cannot be confiscated merely because it was used in commission of offence under the Act – However, Rules of 2022 do not provide any such liberty to owner nor do they empower Committee to release a vehicle/conveyance seized under the Act – Power to determine whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in Special Court constituted under NDPS Act and not in any administrative or executive authority such as Drug Disposal Committee – Confiscation, being a measure resulting in deprivation of property, must conform to basic tenets of natural justice and must be preceded with a prior hearing which would ensure that an innocent owner or a bona fide claimant, whose vehicle or container might have been misused without his knowledge or connivance, is not subjected to undue hardship and unjust deprivation of his property. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 451 and 4578 [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS] – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 60 and 63 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Rules 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 – Release of seized vehicle on Supurdagi pending conclusion of trial – Confiscation or otherwise of a conveyance is to be determined finally, only upon conclusion of trial, and until such adjudication, ownership rights of owner, who prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with seized contraband, from claiming seized vehicle cannot be extinguished – Power of confiscation is coupled with duty to observe procedural fairness and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to an innocent owner who had neither knowledge nor wilfully participated or connived to commit offence under NDPS Act – Rules of 2022 restrict mode of disposal of a seized conveyance to “tender or auction”, as may be determined by Drug Disposal Committee – However, this restrictive procedural framework must necessarily be read in harmony with parent statute – Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or curtail substantive rights and procedural safeguards envisaged under parent legislation that is NDPS Act – While the Act provides for confiscation in appropriate cases, it does not preclude Court from granting interim release of vehicle where circumstances so warrant – Powers under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS] pertaining to disposal of property pending trial, would certainly apply to proceedings before Special Court – In absence of express bar under NDPS Act, mere fact that a vehicle may be liable to confiscation under Section 60 cannot, by itself, operate to deny interim custody to a bona fide owner – Appellant is true owner of vehicle, having valid documents – Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS] – Vehicle to be released on Supurdagi to appellant. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Appellant herein has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave for assailing judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by Single Judge of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court1 in Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.1021 of 2024, whereby prayer made by appellant for interim custody of his lorry was rejected.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 shall be released on Supurdagi to appellant on such terms and conditions, which Special Court may impose.

Result : Appeal allowed.