Seized property in drug trafficking cases should not be returned if linked to ongoing criminal activities, prioritizing public safety and procedural compliance.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the order of dismissal dated 20.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.9838 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, the petitioner, who is the owner of the mobile phone viz., OnePlus Nord CE 2 Lite 5G, seized in Crime No.129 of 2024, is before this Court with the present revision, for return of property.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone viz., OnePlus Nord CE 2 Lite 5G and a third party to the case. He further submitted that A1 in this case is the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner is no way connected with the offence. The respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.129 of 2024 on 07.05.2024 for the offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the petitioner's mother Rahamath Nisha/A1 and Saiyath Mushtaq Basha/A2 and seized the above said mobile phone from the petitioner's mother/A1. He further submitted that the petitioner is a college student and he requires the said mobile phone for his day to day usage more particularly for his education. Since he hails from a poor family and his financial condition is such that, he cannot buy another new mobile phone. Hence he filed a petition for return of property before the Trial Court but the Trial Court negatived the petitioner's contention since the case is under investigation stage and if the mobile phone is returned to the petitioner, it may be used to commit similar kind of offences, is not proper. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the mobile phone of the petitioner projected as part of the crime and it was used by the petitioner's mother in creating Whatsapp group for trafficking and peddling contraband, there is nothing to show that the investigation is on that line. On the other hand, the mobile phone was not sent for forensic examination to collect any electronic evidence.

3. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police filed counter and submitted that on 07.05.2024 at about 16.00 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police received secret information that the petitioner's mother and another accused were illegally transporting Ganja and peddling the same within her jurisdiction. The Sub Inspector of Police informed her higher officials, got permission and had gone to Ramasamy Street near Kanmani Hospital where she found A1 and A2 came in two wheeler viz., Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.TN-06-AC-3911, parked the two wheeler in front of the hospital and were standing with Velvet colour bag and black colour bag. On seeing the Police team, they attempted to escape from the scene, but they were caught by the Police team and the Police team informed their right and conducted search. From the petitioner's mother, 279 grams of ganja and from A2, 1.100 kilograms of ganja, in total 1.27 kilograms of ganja, two mobile phones one OPPO and another Oneplus, cash of Rs.30,300/- and two wheeler all seized. Thereafter, the accused arrested and produced before the learned Principal Special Judge who received the seized articles and assigned case property number in A.No.610 of 2024 and B.No.358 of 2024, dated 13.05.2024. Thereafter, the samples were sent for forensic examination who confirmed it as ganja. He further submitted that the petitioner's mother from the year 2017 onwards, ac