1. Criminal revision against order refusing release of vehicle seized in NDPS Act case — Ownership not disputed. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Yasheer Arafath – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Rep – Respondent
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1173 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Rajaboopathy
For the Respondents: A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Rajaboopathy
For the Respondents: A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
A court must exercise its power under BNSS Sections 497 and 503 promptly to release seized property to its owner pending trial, especially when ownership is undisputed and continued custody would damage the property.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 25A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 497 and 503 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 296(b), 132 and 351(3) - Constitution of India - Articles 19, 20 and 21 - Criminal Revision - Power of court to order interim custody of seized vehicle - Principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) - Vehicle seized in connection with NDPS offence - Ownership not disputed - Trial court refused release - Held, impugned order unsustainable - Court must exercise power under BNSS Sections 497 and 503 promptly to avoid damage to property - Vehicle to be released on bank guarantee and bond - Revision allowed. (Paras 13-21)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Custody and disposal of property - BNSS Section 497 empowers court to make orders for proper custody of property pending inquiry or trial, and Section 503 provides procedure upon seizure - Purpose is to avoid deterioration of property and protect owner's rights - Mere pendency of confiscation proceedings not a bar to release - Owner entitled to use property subject to conditions. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a three-wheeler auto (Regn. No. TN 76 AB 4574), sought its release after it was seized by respondent police on 09.11.2024 for alleged possession of 10 grams of ganja in connection with Crime No.538/2024 under NDPS Act and BNS. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for return of vehicle (Crl.M.P.No.1495/2024 dated 11.12.2024). The petitioner filed this criminal revision, contending that he is the rightful owner, his livelihood depends on the vehicle, and continued custody would render it useless. The respondent opposed, arguing release would prejudice the prosecution.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial court failed to properly exercise its power under BNSS Sections 497 and 503. Keeping the vehicle in open yard serves no purpose and causes mental and financial hardship. Ownership being undisputed, the vehicle must be released to prevent damage. Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and other precedents, the court directed release subject to conditions: bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- and a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in refusing to release the seized vehicle to its owner pending trial, and whether the impugned order was sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the power under BNSS Sections 497 and 503 must be exercised promptly to avoid deterioration of property. Where ownership is not disputed and no useful purpose is served by continued custody, the vehicle should be released to the owner on suitable conditions. The trial court's failure to apply these principles rendered its order unsustainable. Result : Criminal Revision Case allowed; impugned order dated 11.12.2024 set aside; vehicle directed to be released to petitioner upon furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- and bond. No order as to costs. (Paras 20-21)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks release citing ownership and livelihood; Respondent opposes citing prejudice to prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; vehicle directed to be released on bank guarantee and bond. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Can a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act be released to its owner pending trial when ownership is not disputed?
Yes, under Section 497 BNSS, the court may release the vehicle to prevent deterioration, subject to conditions such as bank guarantee and bond. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Is pendency of confiscation proceedings a bar to interim release of a seized vehicle?
No, pendency of confiscation proceedings does not bar release, as held in Allahabad High Court decisions. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the proper exercise of power under Section 497 BNSS regarding seized property?
The court must exercise the power judiciously and without delay to avoid damage to property, and may release it to the owner on conditions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. What procedure should be followed under Section 503 BNSS for seized property?
The court should promptly follow Section 503 BNSS for disposal or release of seized property to the entitled person to avoid prolonged custody and deterioration. (Para 17 , 18 )
ORDER
Heard Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1495 of 2024, dated 11.12.2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District and hand over the Vehicle, viz., three wheeler Auto bearing Registration No.TN 76 AB 4574 to the Revision Petitioner’s custody.
3. The case of the Prosecution is that on 09.11.2024 at about 12.30 am., when the Respondent Police along with his Team were on patrol duty at Kadayanallur Ailaliya Thirumana Mandapam, they found that the accused persons were found in possession of 10 gram of Ganja and contraband in the vehicle, viz., three wheeler Auto bearing Registration No.TN 76 AB 4574. Thus, the Respondent Police seized the said vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.538 of 2024, dated 09.11.2024 under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (A) and 25A of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 296(b), 132 and 351(3) of BNS, Act, 2023. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1495 of 2024, seeking release of the said vehicle, before the Trial Court and by the impugned order, dated 11.12.2024, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, refusing to release the said vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3.On behalf of the Respondent Police, Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, opposing to release the Vehicle in question to the Revision Petitioner, as if the Vehicle in question is released, it would seriously prejudice the case of the Prosecution and affect the integrity of the proceedings.
4.This Court heard Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
5.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that the Vehicle in question was misused by the accused persons, however, the Respondent Police seized the vehicle in question in an arbitrary manner and the action of Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and he has not indulged in any such illegal activities by using the said vehicle.
6.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the impugned order of the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking return of the vehicle in question is not sustainable and that when the ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of the Court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the learned Counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in question.
7.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Revision Petitioner is facing great jeopardize due to confiscation of the vehicle in question by the Respondent and his livelihood is depend upon the said vehicle and the said vehicle is the main source of earning and now his family has come at the verge of starvation. Thus, the action of the Respondent is clear cut violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned Counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638.
9.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
