The NDPS Act mandates that seized vehicles must be disposed of through the Drug Disposal Committee, not through interim custody applications under the CrPC, to ensure compliance with statutory mechanisms and prevent administrative stagnation.

JUDGMENT :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Additional District Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, in Crl.M.P.No.3842 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-57-AQ-2165 [Lorry] was dismissed.

2. The vehicle was seized during investigation in connection with Crime No.15 of 2021 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) in the year 2021 and was produced during trial as material evidence. The trial culminated in a judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.75 of 2021, dated 20.01.2023.

3. In the said judgment, the trial Court did not issue any specific confiscation order under Section 60 of the NDPS Act but observed that the vehicle may be released to the “rightful owner” after expiry of the appeal period or outcome of any appeal filed by the State. The appellant, claiming ownership, sought return of the vehicle through an application under Section 452 (2) CrPC, which was dismissed on the ground that the State had expressed intent to prefer an appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial having concluded in acquittal, and the Court having recorded that the vehicle may be released to the rightful owner after the expiry of appeal time or disposal of appeal, the vehicle cannot be retained indefinitely. It was argued that a significant period has elapsed and no appeal has been filed. The appellant, as registered owner, is being denied his constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without any legal justification. It was also submitted that the continued retention of the vehicle serves no evidentiary purpose and causes undue hardship.

5. He has also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and Basavalingappa v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 1 SCC 504 to urge that Courts must ensure timely return of seized vehicles when they are no longer required for evidence and that any delay in returning them constitutes arbitrary deprivation of property.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the appeal, submitted that the vehicle was part of a seizure effected in connection with a grave NDPS offence. Though the trial concluded in acquittal, the seizure was made during lawful investigation, and the appellant had not come forward during investigation or trial to claim the vehicle. He pointed out that the appellant was not an accused and never made any application for interim custody under Section 451 CrPC when the matter was pending before the trial Court. As such, the State could not verify the appellant’s ownership or connection to the vehicle when the matter was actively under judicial scrutiny.

7. It was further contended that the appellant’s delayed assertion of ownership, only after acquittal of the accused,