Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 7215
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.VADAMALAI, J
nabisa begam – Appellant
Versus
the state of tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl.R.C(MD)No.12 of 2025
Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
Vehicles seized under the NDPS Act should be returned to non-accused owners if no specific allegations are made against them, following established guidelines.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)
(B), and 22(a) - Seizure of vehicle involved in drug-related crime - The petitioner, not an accused, sought return of the vehicle seized by police; trial court dismissed the petition - Court noted the vehicle was kept idle and exposed to elements, leading to potential loss of value. (Paras 2, 5, 9)
(B) Property Return Guidelines - Court emphasized that if no specific allegations against the vehicle owner exist, it should normally be released, following the principles established in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Interim Custody - The court allowed the revision petition, ordering the return of the vehicle on conditions to protect its condition during pending confiscation proceedings. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The vehicle was seized during a police operation involving ganja and diazepam powder. The petitioner argued for its return, emphasizing the lack of involvement in the crime.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not implicated in the crime and that the vehicle's prolonged custody without use was detrimental.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicle should be returned to the petitioner given their non-involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that vehicles should not be kept idle if the owner is not implicated, allowing for their return under certain conditions.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 18.11.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.7216 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, for return of two wheeler bearing registration number TN 49 CP 0459, which was seized by the respondent police in Crime No.498 of 2024.
2.The brief facts of the case:
It is alleged that on 21.09.2024 at 10.15 a.m., the respondent police found two persons with ganja and diazepam powder in the two wheeler bearing registration number TN-49-CP-0459. For the alleged occurrence, a case was registered in Crime No.498 of 2024 by the respondent police against them for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a) of the NDPS Act . The respondent seized 1.110 kg of ganja and 150 gram of diazepam powder and also seized the vehicle. The petitioner, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle, has filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.7216 of 2024 before the Additional District Court/Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, for return of property on interim custody. After hearing both sides, the petition was dismissed on 18.11.2024.
3. Being aggrieved by the order, the revision petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The petitioner’s vehicle is not involved in this crime. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the respondent police and the same has been kept idle in the respondent’s police station without any maintenance. The petitioner’s vehicle is kept idle in open place from the date of seizure and the vehicle will get ruined by sunlight and rain and it would lose its value. The trial Court has not considered the guidelines in the case of return of property as settled by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent objected and contended that the vehicle was remanded before the trial Court in RPRNo.79/2024 and confiscation proceedings has not been initiated so far and the same is pending for process. The vehicle was seized with contraband. If the interim custody of the vehicle is ordered, there are more possibilities for not cooperating for investigation and the petitioner may alter the physical conditions of the vehicle. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and dismissed the petition. Therefore, he strongly opposed this petition.
7. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized under NDPS Act and the same has been in police custody. It is also clear that the property in question was remanded before the trial Court under RPRNo.79/2024. It is the settled principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case, there is no use in keeping seized vehicles at police station in open place exposing to sunlight and rain for a long period and it is open to pass appropriate orders for return of seized vehicles on conditions.
8. The learned Single Judge of the Principal Seat of this Court has also ordered for release of vehicle involved in NDPS Cases for interim custody in Crl.R.C.Nos.1010 of 2023, 993 of 2023, 787 of 2023, 562 of 2023 and 1241 of 2023 and by following the above, this Court has also ordered in Crl.R.C(MD)No.1251 of 2023 on 05.03.2024 for release of vehicle seized under NDPS Act . In a recent case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no specific allegation is made against the owner or his agent like driver or cleaner in nature of this crime the vehicle should normally be released and the decision is reported in CDJ 2025 SC 040 (Bishwajit Dey /v/ State o
