Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Jasmine – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu, Rep., By the SHO, Kodaikanal, Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial court observations on the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for the petitioner's innocence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on vehicle release. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal context around custody rights. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
Heard M/s.S.Modharshini, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.P.Kottaisamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.539 of 2025 passed by Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, whereby petitioner's request for interim custody of the vehicle viz., Yamaha Fascino bearing Registration No.TN-57-CV-7947 in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul, was rejected.
3. M/s.S.Modharshini, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as a primary coordinator at MAM Alqalam, Kodaikanal and in the year 2024, she purchased a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-57-CV-7947, Yamaha Fascino for her everyday transport. On the date of alleged offence, petitioner's husband's friend had borrowed her vehicle and had used it for the alleged off
A true vehicle owner not implicated in a narcotics crime is entitled to interim custody of their vehicle pending trial, emphasizing procedural fairness and rights under statutory law.
Ownership rights must be acknowledged in interim custody claims of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act, especially when no charges are laid against the owner.
Interim custody of property seized under drug law is granted to uncharged owners unless proven involved, affirming their rights within legal frameworks established.
Car owners, not charged in drug cases, may have vehicles returned unless shown knowledge or involvement in crimes.
The court emphasized that the ownership of seized vehicles cannot be ignored and must be adjudicated by a Special Court to ensure fairness and justice.
The court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under NDPS Act lies with the Special Court, ensuring owners' rights are protected during proceedings.
Interim custody of a seized vehicle under NDPS is justified if the owner proves no knowledge or involvement in illegal acts, respecting natural justice.
The ownership of a vehicle seized under NDPS Act must be respected if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use; interim custody can be granted subject to conditions.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
