Special Courts under the NDPS Act retain jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized vehicles under the BNSS/Cr.P.C. provisions, as the NDPS Act's 2022 Rules are administrative and do not divest the Court of its judicial authority to prevent waste and protect bona fide owners.

ORDER

Preface:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P.No.428 of 2025 by the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, rejecting the petitioner’s request for interim custody of his vehicle, namely, Maruti Suzuki Tour car bearing Registration No. TN-59-CL-7012, seized in Crime No.276 of 2024 for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).

Case of the Prosecution:

2. According to the prosecution, on 12.08.2024, the respondent police were conducting a routine vehicle inspection on Periyakulam–Batlagundu Road at Katpadi check-post. At about the relevant time, a car bearing Registration No. TN-59-CL-7012 approached the checkpost. The vehicle was stopped and subjected to the usual inspection. It is alleged that the occupants inside the car suddenly fled from the spot, taking advantage of the situation. On further search, 4.755 kilograms of ganja were recovered from the vehicle. The contraband was seized. Hence, Crime No.276 of 2024 was registered, and the investigation was taken up for offences under the NDPS Act.

3. The vehicle in question was seized as the conveyance used in the commission of the alleged offence and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The respondent thereafter initiated steps under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by preparing an inventory and forwarding the vehicle for disposal through the Drug Disposal Committee as per the 2022 Rules.

Case of the petitioner / Vehicle Owner:

4. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the said Maruti Suzuki Tour car bearing Registration No. TN-59-CL-7012. He is an engineering graduate, presently employed in a private company, and states that due to a meagre salary and financial stress, he purchased the subject vehicle in 2021 under finance from Shriram Finance Ltd. The Registration Certificate and allied documents stand in his name. The car bears a commercial “T-Board” and is used as a rental vehicle.

5. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is routinely rented out to various persons for hire. His own brother, Manikandan, is a driver and is the first accused in this case. On 12.08.2024, the said Manikandan is stated to have borrowed the vehicle on a rental basis for one trip with his “customers”. The petitioner states that only during the night hours on the date of occurrence, he came to know that a case had been registered against his brother and others for transporting ganja and that his car had been seized.

6. He maintains that, he was not present at the scene. He had no knowledge that the vehicle would be used for transporting contraband. He never permitted or connived in such use, and he had purchased the vehicle bona fide for commercial hire and is still repaying the loan.

7. He further submits that the vehicle is lying in the open at the police station, exposed to sun, rain, and natural decay; continued detention will render it useless, while he remains saddled with EMIs and deprived of livelihood.

8. On these premises, he filed Cr.M.P.No.428 of 2025 seeking interim release of the vehicle invoking Section 457 of Cr.P.C., 1973 (now Sections 497/503 BNSS), relying on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam¹2025 INSC 32, Sainaba v. State of Kerala²2022 SCC OnL