The court emphasized the ownership of the seized property, lack of involvement in the crime, and the deteriorating condition of the vehicle as grounds for allowing the return of the property.

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-AT-8264, which was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.185 of 2023 and shown as case property in C.C.No.795 of 2023 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the Norcotics Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioner filed a petition seeking return of Auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-AT-8264 in Crl.M.P.No.7711 of 2023 before the learned I Additional Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai. The learned I Additional Special Judge, by order dated 17.11.2023 dismissed the return of property petition, against which, the present revision has been filed.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that one Anthony Raj entered into a hire purchase agreement with Puja Finance and was running the Auto and thereafter he was unable to repay the dues within time. Hence, the vehicle was seized by the financier/second respondent. In the meanwhile, the said Anthony Raj passed away. Thereafter, as per hire purchase agreement, the ownership of the vehicle was with the financier. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said Auto from Puja Finance/second respondent vide hire purchase agreement dated 01.04.2023. The petitioner is a cancer patient and taking treatment at Stanley Government Hospital. Hence, the Auto was let out for rent to one Balamurugan and the said Balamurugan would take the vehicle and pay the rental charges. With that earnings only the petitioner was surviving.

2.1. This being so, on 09.04.2023, the vehicle was seized by the respondent police found that A1/Balamurugan and other two accused were smuggling Narcotics Ganja of 12.500 kgs in the said Auto. The petitioner later came to know about the seizure of the vehicle and informed the police about petitioner being the owner of the vehicle and without her knowledge the offence committed. The respondent police informed that vehicle already seized and produced before the Court and the petitioner has to approach the trial Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed the return of property petition with all relevant documents but the trial Court not considered the same and dismissed the return of property petition. It is further submitted that now the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather, further detention would make the vehicle unusable, rusted and it would become a scrap. Hence, he prays for return of vehicle.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police filed a counter and submitted that the case of the prosecution is that, on 09.04.2023, at about 08.40 hours., Tmt.Sasikala, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, received a secret information about illegal sale of GANJA. Thereafter the Special Sub Inspector of Police along with his police team went to the place of occurrence, i.e., near Hindustan Petrol Bunk, NCTPS Road Pattamunthiri, Redhills, at that time, A1/Balamurugan, A2/ Aakash and A3/Chandrasekar were came in Auto bearing registration No.TN 04 AT 8264 and the respondent police caught the accused in spot and enquired them and found 12.500 Kgs of Ganja, in illegal possession of accused. Thereafter, the respondent police, arrested the accused A1 to A3 and recorded their confession statements and seized total contraband of 12.500 kgs of Ganja, Samsung M12 Mobile Phone, Oppo A15s Mobile Phone, Oppo Reno6 Mobile Phone and vehicle under the cover of seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Based on the above, a case was registered in Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Redhills in Crime No.185 of 2023 for offence under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii) (B), 29(1), 25 of NDPS Act on 09.04.2023 at about 11.40 hours against the accused by the Inspector of Police, i/c. PEW, Ambattur and submitted before the respondent police for further investigation.

3.1. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the accused A1 to A3 were produced befor