BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Rahulraj, S/o.Jebamalai, 21, Nagu Nagar 1^st Street, Maravar Garden, Madurai District. ... Petitioner vs.

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station, Madurai City. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Principal Special Court Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.3600 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Praveenkumar For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side)

*****

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the Principal Special Court Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.3600 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 and to consequently grant interim custody of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-58-BK-7351.

2.The case of the Prosecution is that on 28.06.2025, on secret information, the police team went to the place of occurrence and arrested ten accused persons and seized 3.5 gram of ghanja and other 15 properties, which includes the vehicle in question (Honda Amaze Car), bearing registration No.TN-58-BK-7351. Thus, the respondent seized the said vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.163 of 2025 under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.3600 of 2025, seeking release of the said vehicle, before the Trial Court and by the impugned order, dated 22.09.2025, 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.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has filed counter affidavit and the same is available on record.

4.This Court heard Mr.K.C.Maniyarasu, 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 had falsely lodged the complaint against him only on suspicion and against the provisions of law and the action of Respondent Police 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, as the Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent Police 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 Police. Thus, the action of the Respondent Police 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 Couns