O R D E R

Challenging the order of dismissal dated 29.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.8649 of 2024, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, the petitioner, who is the owner of the mobile phone viz.,Apple iPhone 15 Green MTPA3HNA and Serial Number 357992877515343, seized in Crime No.231 of

2024, is before this Court with the present Revision.

2. Mr.A.Tamilselvan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the mobile phone viz.,Apple iPhone 15 Green MTPA3HNA and Serial Number 357992877515343. He would further submit that the accused in this case is her brother and the petitioner is no way connected with the offence. Since her brother's Mobile Phone was not working, he taken her Mobile Phone for some urgency. Latter, it has been seized by the respondent police.

3. Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit that on 18.06.2024 at about 9.00 hours, when Chellamuthu HC-1109 was in station duty, at that time, he received secret information about the illegal transportation of Narcotic substance. Based on that, the Police Team went to the scene of occurrence ie., Panapakkam Bus Stop, Arani. At that time, one unknown person standing in a suspicious manner. Police apprehended and enquired him. During enquiry, he disclosed his name as Silapathikaram. On search, 1.200 Kgs of Ganja was seized from him along with Apple iPhone under cover of mahazar in Crime No.231 of 2024. Thereafter, the accused and articles were produced before the Special Court and the same was taken on file in A.No.1007/2024 and B.No.567 of 2024 on 12.08.2024. The petitioner, who is the brother of the sole accused / Silapathikaram, filed a petition before the trial Court seeking return of mobile phone. The trial Court dismissed the petition for the reason investigation not completed.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition submitting that return of property in the NDPS Act Cases cannot be entertained invoking Sections 457 and 451 of Cr.P.C., and it is liable for confiscation under Section 52-A, 60, 61 and 63 of NDPS Act., unless the owner of the conveyance proves that the conveyance was used without his knowledge and connivance, he has taken all reasonable precaution against such use. In support of his contention, the learned State Public Prosecutor relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 3 SCC 674 to stress the point that, where there is a special Act dealing with subject, resort should be to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. He stressed his argument mainly on Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and Another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, wherein the Apex Court has given directions for storage, seizure and sampling, handling and disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Considering the piquant situation in which accumulation of huge quantities of seized drugs and narcotics increased the chances of their pilferage for re-circulation in the market and also finding that despite Central Government Standing Order No.1/1989 and two subsequent Standing Orders, dated 10.05.2007 and 16.01.2015 giving directions, directing that no sooner seizure of any narcotic and psychotropic and controlled substances and conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act and Section 52-A(2) of the Act. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate and the Central and State Government and its agencies within six months from the date of the order take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized narcotic and psychotropic substances and conveyances, duly equipped with vaults and double-locking system to prevent the