custody of the respondent police, within the station limits, pending investigation.

4. In the objection filed to Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2024, the prosecution contended, in substance, that the subject vehicle was involved in the NDPS offence and is liable for confiscation under the NDPS Act. The investigation is still pending. The petition seeking interim custody is not maintainable. If the vehicle is released to the petitioner at this stage, he may not produce it in future, thereby hampering the prosecution and any confiscation proceedings. On these premises, the prosecution opposed interim release.

Case of the Petitioner:

5. The petitioner’s case, as set out in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2024 and reiterated in this revision, may be summarised as follows:

He is the registered owner of the subject vehicle seized in Crime No.296 of 2023. The registration certificate and allied documents stand in his name. He asserts that, while his vehicle may have been seized in connection with the alleged incident, he has not been arrayed as an accused, and there is no material to show that he had knowledge of, or connivance in, any use of the vehicle for transporting contraband. He contends that the vehicle is a valuable asset, necessary for his livelihood / domestic use, and has been lying at the police station exposed to sun, rain and other natural elements, causing rapid deterioration and loss of value.

6. If the vehicle is kept indefinitely in the station yard, it will become mechanically unfit, lose road-worthiness and market value, and he will suffer irreparable financial loss, despite there being no allegation of criminal intent on his part. He submits that under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 (now Sections 497 and 503 BNSS), read with Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS Act, the criminal court has ample jurisdiction to pass orders regarding interim custody, and that Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act protect innocent owners, and that the NDPS framework does not mandate the indefinite retention of vehicles in police custody. He asserts that he is willing to furnish a substantial bond, produce solvent sureties, file an undertaking not to alienate or misuse the vehicle, and produce the vehicle whenever required by the Court or the Investigating Officer. On these grounds, he sought interim return of the vehicle.

Gist of the Trial Court Order:

7. By order dated 05.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.314 of 2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, dismissed the petition.

The substance of the order is:

The subject vehicle is seized in connection with Crime No.296 of

2023 registered for serious offences under the NDPS Act, and investigation is still pending. The prosecution has objected to the petition, stating that the vehicle is involved in the NDPS offence and is liable for confiscation, and that if released, the petitioner may not produce it. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the pendency of investigation, the Court held that the petition for interim custody is not maintainable / not fit to be allowed. On this reasoning, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application.

Grounds of Revision:

8. The impugned order is assailed broadly on the following grounds:

The learned Magistrate erred in holding, in effect, that an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Sections 497 and 503 BNSS is not maintainable in relation to a vehicle seized in an NDPS case, ignoring Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS Act, which preserve the applicability of the Code. The Court below failed to consider the statutory protection afforded by Section 60(3) NDPS Act, which requires proof of an owner’s knowledge or connivance before a conveyance can be confiscated, and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a judicial determination of confiscation after notice and hearing.

9. The impugned order does not even advert to, much less apply, the binding judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat¹, Sainaba v. State of Kerala, [2022 SCC