The NDPS Act's specific provisions regarding seized vehicles take precedence over general Cr.P.C. provisions, requiring proof of ownership and lack of knowledge of illicit use for return of property.

ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

1. The seizure of the Toyota Innova Car bearing Regn. No.KL-21-C-0786 by the respondent herein in Crime No. 224/2022 for the alleged offences punishable u/s 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’), resulted in the filing of Crl. M.P. No.613/2023, u/s 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner herein, seeking return of the said vehicle, which was dismissed vide order dated 9.6.2023 by the Addl. District Judge, Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPS cases, Madurai, has ended before this Court assailing the said order.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present revision are as hereunder :-

It is averred by the petitioner that he is the owner of the Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No.KL-21-C-0786, which, as an interim arrangement, is alleged to have been handed over to one Hakkim, Sub Inspector of Police in Kerala Police Department on 29.07.2019 for his personal use towards some medical treatment to be taken by the said individual at Apollo Hospitals, Chennai. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the original RC book, insurance, PUC and other related documents were also handed over to the said Hakkim.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that it came to his knowledge that the vehicle was seized due its involvement in some NDPS offences, with which the petitioner is in no way connected. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the vehicle is alleged to have been used by one Jayakumar for transporting contraband and the same was seized, who was arrayed as A-16. After ascertaining the involvement of the said vehicle, which belonged to him, in trafficking contraband, from the law enforcing agency, the petitioner filed petition for interim custody of the vehicle before the trial court, on the ground that the continuous exposure of the vehicle to the atmosphere would render the vehicle prone to corrosion and decay, which was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle belongs to the petitioner, which was given on an interim basis to Hakkim for his personal use, however, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the vehicle had been used for transporting contraband by one Jayakumar, who is arrayed as A-16 in the abovesaid crime number. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the complaint dated 29.10.2018 filed by the petitioner before Poojapura Police Station did not elicit response from the law enforcing agency at Kerala which related to the dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle between the petitioner and the said Hakkim, which led to the filing of C.M.P.No.5 of 2020, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the further submission of the learned counsel thatupon conduct of enquiry, cognizance was taken by the Court u/s 403 IPC against the said Hakkim and the miscellaneous petition was renumbered as C.C.No.136 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananth