The owner of a vehicle seized in connection with an NDPS offence can claim its release if proved unconnected with the crime, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny in such cases.

ORDER :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

Heard M/s.D.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order of Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai District, dated 29.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3712 of 2025 and to direct the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai District to return the vehicle, viz., Skoda Auto, bearing Registration No.TN-76-AS-7887, to Revision Petitioner.

3. Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner, would submit that the subject vehicle originally belonged to petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that a case in Crime No.2 of 2025 was registered by the 2^nd respondent police as against one Subash Chandra Bose (Died). The allegation made in the FIR is that when the police tried to arrest the sole accused, namely Subash Chandra Bose, they opened fire, for self-defence, the police officials returned fire and he died on the way to hospital. Then the vehicle was seized along with Ganja weighing 12.900Kgs. A case was registered in Crime No.219 of 2025, for the offences punishable under sections 296(b), 109 of BNS and Section 25 (1A) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 196 (1) of S. The vehicle was seized and produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court for RPR numbering and the same was numbered in RPR.No.124 of 2025. He further submitted that the petitioner had leased the said vehicle to Mohammed Paris from 01.02.2025 to 31.01.2026. The petitioner was not involved in any offence and he is not arraigned as accused in the said case. The vehicle was involved in the alleged occurrence without the knowledge of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that impugned order places reliance on the order of this Court in the case ofNahoorhani vs State in Crl.RC(MD).No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023. The impugned order suffers from error apparent inasmuch as the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nahoorhani's case relied by the court below, has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in2025 Live Law (SC) 1032. He would further submit that petitioner is the owner and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said vehicle was involved in serious offence of transporting ganja and therefore, this Court must exercise restraint while entertaining these petitions and the vehicle may be released subject to conditions. He would also submit that 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 note that petition for release of vehicle was rejected by relying upon 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