Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
, J
Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.41 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Counsel Name
For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Name
Interim custody of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act is permissible, provided statutory safeguards concerning notice and opportunity to be heard are not violated.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 63 - Confiscation of vehicles - Interim custody of seized vehicle - Vehicle claimed to be unclaimed for over two months cannot automatically lead to confiscation without proper notice or hearing for petitioner. (Para 10, 26)
(B) Interim orders - Court retains power to grant custody of seized vehicles even under NDPS Act, provided it does not contradict statutory provisions concerning confiscation. (Paras 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner is registered owner of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case. The vehicle was used for lawful transport of goods unaware of contraband being stored. Vehicle has been unclaimed and alleged to be decaying, causing economic hardship to the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court's failure to consider ownership and legal protections allowed for interim custody despite the vehicle's alleged unclaimed status.
Issues: Whether the vehicle's non-claim within a two-month period justifies confiscation without notice?
Ratio Decidendi: Court highlighted distinction between interim custody and final confiscation, emphasizing the necessity for notice, hearing, and consideration of ownership rights before confiscation.
Result: Revision allowed, interim custody granted subject to conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of vehicle seizure and petitioner's claims. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments challenging the trial court's ruling on vehicle claim. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. legal basis for interim custody and distinction from confiscation. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. court's reasoning regarding ownership and summary dismissal's impropriety. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 5. final decision and granting of interim custody under conditions. (Para 34 , 36) |
3. A case in Crime No.294 of 2023 was registered for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was seized as the conveyance used in the commission of the alleged offence. The seized vehicle was produced before the jurisdictional Court and kept in custody as case property. The prosecution asserts that the vehicle remained unclaimed for more than two months from the date of seizure and that the owner did not approach the Court within that period. It is further stated that the vehicle is not in running condition and is lying idle.
4. Relying on an order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023, the prosecution took the stand that where a vehicle seized in an NDPS case remains unclaimed for more than two months, it may be appropriated for confiscation under Section 63 NDPS Act. On the above premises, the prosecution opposed interim return of the vehicle and instead prayed that steps be taken for its confiscation / disposal.
Case of the Petitioner:
5. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.6 in Crime No.294 of 2023. His case, in brief, is:
He is the registered owner of the heavy goods vehicle / TAARAS lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-76-AV-5563. The Registration Certificate and supporting records stand in his name. The said vehicle is a goods carrier used for commercial transport of commodities. The petitioner habitually lets out the vehicle on hire for carriage of goods to various destinations. On 06.03.2023, the vehicle was entrusted to his driver for carrying rice bags from Andhra Pradesh to Kerala. The petitioner asserts that he had engaged the vehicle only for lawful goods transport and had no knowledge that contraband ganja would be concealed and transported.
6. He claims that he is not connected with the co-accused allegedly involved in the contraband activity, and that he neither permitted nor connived in the use of the vehicle for any unlawful purpose. The petitioner further points out that in the FIR, the place of occurrence is incorrectly mentioned as Karunthattankudi instead of Chennai, and he relies on this discrepancy as one of the factors contributing to confusion during the initial stages. The petitioner states that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and earns his livelihood through hiring of the said lorry. The vehicle was purchased on finance, and he continues to bear the burden of monthly instalments.
7. The vehicle, after seizure, is lying in the open, exposed to natural elements, and rapidly deteriorating. If not released, he would suffer severe financial loss and mental agony, and the vehicle may become junk even before the trial is concluded. On these allegations, he filed Cr.M.P.No.8149 of 2023 before the learned Special Court seeking interim custody of the TAARAS lorry, undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required and to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
Gist of the Impugned Order:
8. By order dated 09.01.2024, the learned Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, dismissed Cr.M.P.No.8149 of 2023. The impugned order, in substance, proceeds on the following lines:
The TAARAS lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-76-AV-5563 was seized in Crime No.294 of 2023 for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act and produced as case property. The vehicle remained unclaimed by its owner for more than two months from the date of seizure, and it is presently not in running condition. This Court, in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023, has direc
