Interim custody of property seized under drug law is granted to uncharged owners unless proven involved, affirming their rights within legal frameworks established.

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

Heard Mr.A.Balaji, learned Counsel Revision Petitioner and Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent.

2. Present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 07.10.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.2275 of 2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, whereby the petition under Section 497 and 503 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Yamaha R15S motorbike (Mat Black 2 Colour) bearing Registration No.TN-63-CU-2071 (Chassis No.ME1RG67M8R0026369, Engine No.G3N4E0796215, was rejected on the premise that the petition was not maintainable, having been filed at a premature stage, considering the gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the fact that contraband was seized from the said vehicle.

3. Mr.A.Balaji, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is owner of vehicle viz., Yamaha R15S motorbike (Mat Black 2 Colour) bearing Registration No.TN-63-CU-2071 (Chassis No.ME1RG67M8R0026369, Engine No.G3N4E0796215. The said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.226 of 2025, dated 22.06.2025 for offence punishable under Section 8 (c), 20(b)(ii)(A)of NDPS Act, 1985, for illegal transportation of 4 pockets of Ganja weighed about 15 gms1.250Kgs of Ganja. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.2275 of 2025 before Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence. Petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and she would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of Registration Certificate of said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certification stands in the name of petitioner.

5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and in case, confiscation proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.646 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.12.2024, wherein, it was held that with the introduction of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, it was only the Drug Disposal Committee constituted under the said Rules, which would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disposal of the properties seized under NDPS Act. That being the case, power/jurisdiction to decide the interim custody of the property including vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, must also vest exclusively with the Drug Disposal Committee.

7. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had however after referring to the following judgments, viz.,

(i) Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379

(ii) Judgment of the Apex Court in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 (7) KHC 273

(iii) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rathnamma Vs. State represented by PSI Channagiri Police Station Davanagere (Criminal Petition No.3571/2021);

(iv) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shams Tavrej Vs. Union of