Return of property seized under the NDPS Act can be ordered if the owner is not implicated, aligning with specific provisions of Cr.P.C. despite general statutory restrictions.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Challenging the order of dismissal dated 15.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2024, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under NDPS & EC Act at Chennai, the petitioner, who is the owner of the mobile phone, is before this Court with the present Revision.

2. Mr.A.Vinoth Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone, bearing Model No.“Apple iPhone 13 (128 GB)-Midnight having colour of Black, IMEI No.350112337364722, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.452 of 2024, before the learned Principal Special Judge under NDPS & EC Act at Chennai, and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the offence. A1 being the relative of the petitioner taken his Mobile for some urgency. The petitioner undertakes to produce the Mobile Phone before the trial Court as and when required.

3. Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, the learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that on 16.11.2023, at about 07.00 hrs., the respondent police received secret information about the illegal transport of Gana near Mahendra City, Green Biji Guest House. The respondent went to the scene of occurrence along with his team and found two persons viz., Akshay/A1 and Irshad/A2 were standing there on suspicious manner. They were questioned and latter from them 1.350 Kgs of Ganja and two Mobile Phones, “Apple” and “Redmi” were seized. The seized articles were produced before the Court in A.No.84/2024, B.No.218/2024, respectively dated 12.01.2024 and 13.03.2024. The petitioner, who is uncle of Akshay/A1 filed a petition before the trial Court seeking return of mobile phone. The trial Court dismissed the petition for the reason investigation not completed.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition submitting that return of property in the NDPS Act Cases cannot be entertained invoking Sections 457 and 451 of Cr.P.C., and it is liable for confiscation under Section 52 -A, 60, 61 and 63 of NDPS Act., unless the owner of the conveyance proves that the conveyance was used without his knowledge and connivance, he has taken all reasonable precaution against such use. In support of his contention, the learned State Public Prosecutor relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 3 SCC 674 to stress the point that, where there is a special Act dealing with subject, resort should be to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. He stressed his argument mainly on Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and Another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, wherein the Apex Court has given directions for storage, seizure and sampling, handling and disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Considering the piquant situation in which accumulation of huge quantities of seized drugs and narcotics increased the chances of their pilferage for re-circulation in the market and also finding that despite Central Government Standing Order No.1/1989 and two subsequent Standing Orders, dated 10.05.2007 and 16.01.2015 giving directions, directing that no sooner seizure of any narcotic and psychotropic and controlled substances and conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act and Section 52 -A(2) of the Act. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate and the Central and State Govern