Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
M. Seethai – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Thoothukudi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claims in drug-related vehicle seizures. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's directive on vehicle release terms. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent.
2. Present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2025, dated 30.12.2025, whereby the petition filed under Sections 497 and 503(2) of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Yamaha MT 15 bearing Registration No.TN 92 L 9579, was rejected.
3. Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle viz., Yamaha MT 15 bearing Registration No.TN 92 L 9579. The said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.279 of 2025, dated 10.11.2025 for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, alleging that the said vehicle was involved in transportation of 15 grams of Ganja. Petitioner ha
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 property seized under drug law is granted to uncharged owners unless proven involved, affirming their rights within legal frameworks established.
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.
Interim custody of a seized vehicle under NDPS is justified if the owner proves no knowledge or involvement in illegal acts, respecting natural justice.
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.
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
