Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Amutha – Appellant
Versus
State through Station House Officer, Seidunganallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1130, 1195, 1234, 1291, 1301, 1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196, 201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504, 512, 518 and 536 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1557 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Venkatesh, Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, Mr.D.Venkatachalam, Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, Mr.S.Harish, Mr.K.Dinesh, Mr.A.Mohan, Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Mr.AK.Gopalan, Mr.T.Balakrishnan, Mr.R.J.Karthick, Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin, Mr.I.Pinaygash, Mr.C.Jeya Prakash, Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Mr.P.Surliraja, Mr.M.Chandrabose, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

In the context of NDPS Act, interim custody of seized vehicles is governed by specific legislative provisions, which preclude general Code of Criminal Procedure applications, emphasizing timely disposal processes to uphold legislative intent.

Headnote:The Criminal Revisions addressed significant legal issues pertaining to the interim custody of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Court examined the relevant provisions including Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongside Section 63 of the NDPS Act, discussing the requirements for property disposal and the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act. The Court noted previous judgments and emphasized the necessity of timely action in handling seized property. In dismissing the petitions, it upheld the specialized mechanism established under the NDPS provisions for the final disposal of seized assets. The primary issue raised by the petitioners revolved around the jurisdiction of the courts to grant interim custody or to invoke General Code provisions despite the specific directives of the NDPS Act. The court reiterated the distinct processes of criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings, stating that the two are parallel and separate, necessitating different considerations. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed that orders granting interim custody would undermine the legislation's intent and directed that all decisions regarding the disposition of seized vehicles must adhere strictly to the NDPS Act. The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1130, 1195, 1234, 1291, 1301, 1365 of 2024, and 150, 171, 176, 196, 201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504, and 518 of 2025 are dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to submit representations to the Drug Disposal Committee, which shall consider them on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1130, 1195, 1234, 1291, 1301, 1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196, 201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504 and 518 of 2025 are directed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3201 of 2022, 2444 of 2024, 1774 of 2024, 1754 of 2024, 1656 of 2024, 1559 of 2024, 2295 of 2024, 5565 of 2024, 5361 of 2024, 1852 of 2024, 3864 of 2024, 3134 of 2024, 8439 of 2024, 2006 of 2024, 3370 of 2024, 3325 of 2024, 713 of 2025, 5863 of 2024, 359 of 2025, 358 of 2025, 186 of 2025, 462 of 2025, 20 of 2025, 527 of 2025 and 357 of 2025 dated 04.01.2023, 06.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 16.10.2024, 28.06.2024, 27.04.2024, 26.03.2024, 19.11.2024, 08.11.2024, 08.10.2024, 02.01.2025, 23.10.2024, 17.12.2024, 28.11.2024, 22.01.2025, 11.11.2024, 07.02.2025, 10.01.2025, 04.03.2025, 04.03.2025, 31.01.2025, 07.03.2025, 27.02.2025, 18.03.2025 and 04.03.2025 respectively, dismissing the petitions filed under Section 497 B.N.S.S. (451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C.)

2. The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.512 of 2025 and 536 of 2025 are directed against the conditions and condition No.(ii) respectively passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.6699 of 2025 and 4011 of 2024 dated 12.03.2025 and 10.09.2024.

3. The orders now under challenge came to be passed in the petitions filed under Section 497 B.N.S.S. seeking interim custody of the vehicles and cell phones involved in the cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act')

4. The petitioners in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1234 of 2024, 1365 of 2024, 219 of 2025, and 394 of 2025 are the accused in their respective cases. In contrast, the petitioners in other cases have varying relationships:

–Relative of the first accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023)

– Mother of the first accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1195 of 2024, 196 of 2025, 201 of 2025, and 518 of 2025)

– Family friend of the accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.150 of 2025)

–Friend of the accused/third accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.285 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 504 of 2025, and 512 of 2025)

–Brother of the seventh accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.312 of 2025)

– Purchaser from the accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.334 of 2025)

–Father of the accused's friend (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.340 of 2025)

Additionally, the petitioners in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1004 of 2024, 1117 of 2024, 1130 of 2024, 1291 of 2024, 1301 of 2024, 171 of 2025, 176 of 2025, 439 of 2025, 467 of 2025, and 536 of 2025 are third-party owners of vehicles.

Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1234, 1301 and 1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504 and 518 of 2025

5. In a similar batch of revision cases, challenging the orders passed under Sections 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C., this Court dealt with the issues raised in the present revisions and passed a common order in Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 646 of 2024 batch dated 20.12.2024 (Loyola Johnson Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Pamban Police Station, Ramanathapuram District) and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-

“4. Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relate to custody and disposal of the property during a criminal investigation or trial. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with the custody and disposal of the property that is pending in enquiry or trial and whereas, Section 457 Cr.P.C. deals with the disposal of the property after the trial or enquiry.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that a speedier procedure needs to be evolved for the disposal of articles kept at police stations and Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised and implemented expeditiously as it is of no use to keep the property including the vehicles at the police stations for a long period and laid down the procedure to be followed by the police officials for custody of different kinds of property, such as valuable articles, money, vehicles, etc.

6. It is pertinent to note that Section 51 of NDPS Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63157

In the context of NDPS Act, interim custody of seized vehicles is governed by specific legislative provisions, which preclude general Code of Criminal Procedure applications, emphasizing timely disposal processes to uphold legislative intent.

Cases Referred (1)