Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
TAMILSELVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
NDPS - Return of Seized Property - NDPS Act - Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) - The court allowed the return of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of the owner's rights and ensuring compliance with legal obligations while referencing binding Supreme Court precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a vehicle owner, sought the return of her car seized in connection with her son’s alleged drug offense, claiming improper investigation and the car’s necessity for medical purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner’s claim, noting the car was not in dispute as her property and citing judicial precedents that support the return of seized vehicles when not in use as evidence.
Issues: Whether the vehicle seized in relation to a drug offense should be returned to its owner despite the nature of the offense and potential future misuse.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision was based on established legal precedents indicating the right of an owner to recover property was paramount, provided certain conditions and undertakings were met.
Final Decision: The order for the return of the vehicle was granted with specified conditions.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.9607 of 2023 dated 23.01.2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases at Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the owner of Wagonr Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-DD-2971, which was seized by the respondent police in Crime No.553 of 2023 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has filed a petition for return of property before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.9607 of 2023 before the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 23.01.2024. Against which, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's son Kalaiarasan, who is the student of SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District studying B.Tech (Information Technology). On 30.11.2023, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner's son Kalaiarasan and one Shek Kadhar for offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 stating that on secret information came to know that the petitioner's son and one Shek Kadhar were found in possession of 1.5 kgs of Ganja. She further contended that the petitioner's son falsely implicated in this case.
The respondent police not properly conducted the investigation.
4. The petitioner submission is that the petitioner's son is a college student and other accused is also his class mate. The petitioner purchased the car for her own use and for her regular medical treatment. She uses the vehicle to visit doctor, for scan treatment and to attend other works. The petitioner's son took the vehicle to his college, to collect hall ticket for examination and the petitioner not aware what had happened there and now her car is seized. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to file an affidavit before the Court below to the effect that the vehicle will not be used for any act of violation of law.
Hence, she prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that if the vehicle is returned to the petitioner, there are every chances to use it for committing similar type of offence. Hence, strongly objected the present revision.
6. Considering the submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner is the owner of the above said car which is not disputed. It is seen that from the date of registration of FIR, the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather and thereby, the value of the vehicle is getting diminished. Added to it, the Apex Court in the case of Sainaba vs. The State of Kerala and another in Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 [SLP (CRL.) No.72080/2022] by following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2002 10 SCC 283” released the vehicle which was involved in the NDPS Act. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objected return of property by referring to the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023, but it is seen that in the said order, the decision of the Apex Court in Sainaba's case has not been referred to. In view of the decision of the Apex Court on this point as laid down which is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to allow return of property.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court is constrained to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9607 of 2023, dated
23.01.2024 and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
8. The learned Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Chennai is directed to return the Wagonr Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-DD-2971 to the petitioner, on the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
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
