1. Vehicle seized under NDPS Act — Accused acquitted — Owner's application for release rejected by lower courts — Appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1065
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B.PARDIWALA, K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ
R. Manimaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 18633 of 2025 ]
Important Points
The power to confiscate a vehicle under Section 63 of the NDPS Act lies with the trial court, not the Drug Disposal Committee, and the court can also invoke CrPC Sections 451/457 for interim custody; acquittal does not automatically bar release.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 52A, 60, 61, 62, 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451, 457 - NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 - Rule 16 - Confiscation of conveyance - Power of court to order release of vehicle pending or after trial - Distinction between interim custody and final release - Acquittal does not automatically entitle release of vehicle - Standard of proof in confiscation proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, distinct from criminal trial - Court can invoke general power under Sections 451/457 CrPC for return of seized vehicle pending final decision - Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) cannot independently proceed without court order - Owner must be heard before reference to DDC - In case of serious flaws in prosecution and acquittal, vehicle can be released to owner. (Paras 8-14)
(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court will not interfere with trial court’s order of release unless perverse or illegal - Trial court’s order directing release of vehicle after acquittal was justified given compelling circumstances. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A lorry carrying 66 kg of ganja was seized and four persons were charged. After trial, the accused were acquitted on grounds including suspicious arrest memo timing, lack of contraband custody register, pandemic transport restrictions, and delay in sample analysis. The trial court directed release of the vehicle to the owner after appeal period. Long after, the owner moved for release; the trial court rejected it, and the High Court affirmed, holding that under Section 63 of the NDPS Act the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the conveyance and the matter must go to the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC). The Supreme Court reversed.
Findings of Court:
The power of confiscation under Section 63(1) rests with the trial court, not the DDC. The NDPS Rules 2022 regarding disposal of conveyances are subject to court’s permission. The court can exercise powers under CrPC Sections 451/457 for interim custody. Here, the trial court had already ordered release; the acquittal was based on serious infirmities in the prosecution case, making the very interception suspect. Hence, the vehicle should be released to the owner. (Paras 11-16)
Issues: Whether the court can order release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act after acquittal? Whether the DDC has exclusive jurisdiction over conveyance disposal? What is the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules, 2022?
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power of confiscation under Section 63(1) is vested in the court trying the offence, not in the DDC. The DDC can only act with court permission. The court may also invoke the general power under CrPC Sections 451/457 for interim custody of seized property. An acquittal does not automatically entitle release, but the court must consider the facts; here, due to serious prosecution flaws, release was appropriate. Result : Criminal appeal allowed. Vehicle bearing registration number TN-57-AQ-2165 to be released to the appellant. Orders of trial court and High Court rejecting release are set aside. (Paras 17-18)
(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court will not interfere with trial court’s order of release unless perverse or illegal - Trial court’s order directing release of vehicle after acquittal was justified given compelling circumstances. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A lorry carrying 66 kg of ganja was seized and four persons were charged. After trial, the accused were acquitted on grounds including suspicious arrest memo timing, lack of contraband custody register, pandemic transport restrictions, and delay in sample analysis. The trial court directed release of the vehicle to the owner after appeal period. Long after, the owner moved for release; the trial court rejected it, and the High Court affirmed, holding that under Section 63 of the NDPS Act the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the conveyance and the matter must go to the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC). The Supreme Court reversed.
Findings of Court:
The power of confiscation under Section 63(1) rests with the trial court, not the DDC. The NDPS Rules 2022 regarding disposal of conveyances are subject to court’s permission. The court can exercise powers under CrPC Sections 451/457 for interim custody. Here, the trial court had already ordered release; the acquittal was based on serious infirmities in the prosecution case, making the very interception suspect. Hence, the vehicle should be released to the owner. (Paras 11-16)
Issues: Whether the court can order release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act after acquittal? Whether the DDC has exclusive jurisdiction over conveyance disposal? What is the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules, 2022?
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power of confiscation under Section 63(1) is vested in the court trying the offence, not in the DDC. The DDC can only act with court permission. The court may also invoke the general power under CrPC Sections 451/457 for interim custody of seized property. An acquittal does not automatically entitle release, but the court must consider the facts; here, due to serious prosecution flaws, release was appropriate. Result : Criminal appeal allowed. Vehicle bearing registration number TN-57-AQ-2165 to be released to the appellant. Orders of trial court and High Court rejecting release are set aside. (Paras 17-18)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
drug offences
- possession of ganja (Para 3)
-
drug offences
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. M. Rashik Hameed Mukilan, Adv. Ms. Vanya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anoopa Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. C. Chinnappa, Adv. Mr. Abhisar Thakral, Adv. Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Adv. Mr. Akash Verma, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. M. Rashik Hameed Mukilan, Adv. Ms. Vanya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anoopa Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. C. Chinnappa, Adv. Mr. Abhisar Thakral, Adv. Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Adv. Mr. Akash Verma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Jurisdiction to release vehicle — Whether court under Section 63 or Drug Disposal Committee — Standard of proof in confiscation vs criminal trial. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
3. Appeal allowed — Vehicle ordered to be released to owner — Impugned judgments set aside. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Can a court order confiscation of a vehicle under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, or must it be done by the Drug Disposal Committee?
The court trying the offence has exclusive power under Section 63(1) to decide confiscation; the DDC can only dispose of property with the court's permission. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Can Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC be invoked for interim custody of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act?
Yes, there is no specific bar; the court may invoke these powers to prevent deterioration of the vehicle pending final decision. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Are confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act independent of the criminal proceedings, and what is the applicable standard of proof?
Yes, they are distinct; acquittal does not mandate release. Standard in confiscation is preponderance of probabilities, in criminal proceedings it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 10 )
7. What are the four scenarios for granting interim custody of a vehicle based on the owner's involvement?
If owner or his agent is accused, interim custody may not be proper; if vehicle was stolen or third party used it, interim custody can be granted. (Para 9 )
8. Must the owner be heard before the vehicle is referred to the Drug Disposal Committee for disposal?
Yes, the court must issue notice and afford a hearing before such reference, and the DDC must also hear the owner before sale. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the High Court confirmed the order of the Additional District & Sessions Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai, rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle involved in the NDPS case.
3. The vehicle was intercepted and on alleged recovery of contraband; 66 kg of ganja, three persons travelling in the lorry were booked, charging them under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). The vehicle, a lorry manufactured by Ashok Leyland was also seized. The persons detained on recovery of contraband was arrayed as A1 to A3, while one another who fled, was arrested and arrayed as A4.
4. The trial saw PW1 to PW8 being examined, marking Ex.P1 to P13 and producing MO1 to MO8 on the side of the prosecution. The accused marked three documents as Exs.D1 to D3. The trial concluded with a judgment acquitting the accused on four grounds; (i) the arrest memo at 8 PM on 04.05.2021 showed the crime number, which was generated on the registration of the FIR on 05.05.2021; (ii) there was no register maintained in the Police Station recording the date and time of keeping the contraband in safe custody; (iii) that the official witnesses were unable to explain as to how the lorry was allowed to ply especially when transport was restricted due to the pandemic and (iv) the delay in sending the samples to the Court and from there to the Laboratory. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Additional District and Sessions Judge also directed the release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period is over.
5. It was long after the period of appeal was over, the appellant herein moved the Trial Court for release of his vehicle, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court, finding that the release of a vehicle detained in a NDPS case has to be through a process involving Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, Standing Orders and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The Investigating Officer (IO) had moved the Trial Court to refer the matter to the DDC and hence the owner will have to approach the DDC was the finding.
6. The High Court noticed the decision of that High Court itself in Nahoorkani v. State , Crl.RC(MD) No.41 of 2017, dated 16.06.2023, which held that the provisions under Section 63 of the NDPS Act has to be proceeded with during the trial and not after it and the right of the State to confiscate, the conveyance and articles or things seized under the NDPS Act, is irrespective of the result of the trial. Section 63 of the NDPS Act modifies Sections 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,2[In short ‘CrPC’] and any claimant to the property involved in an NDPS case would be obliged to satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the NDPS Act. The Court thus does not have jurisdiction to deal with the conveyance seized under the NDPS Act was the finding.
7. There can be no dispute that in the present case no such confiscation proceedings were initiated in the course of the trial or immediately after the judgment was delivered on 20.01.2023. An application is said to have been moved by the I.O before the Trial Court on 18.10.2023 seeking permission to refer the vehicle to DDC.
8. The view taken by the High Court of Madras in Nahoorkani (Supra) runs counter to the view of this Court in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241. On reading the NDPS Act, this Court was of the view that the vehicle in which the contraband is alleged to have been found carried, can be confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial, when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. It was also held that, if the view is, of confiscation, then an opportunity of hearing has to be granted
