Special Courts have the inherent power under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, as Section 52-A is procedural and does not bar such relief; confiscation is a judicial process to be decided post-trial.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.356 of 2025 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, whereby the petition filed by the present petitioner seeking interim custody of her Yamaha R15 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-CH-6793, seized in connection with Crime No.471 of 2024, came to be dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner, as projected before the learned Trial Court and reiterated in this revision, may be briefly summarised as follows: The petitioner is the registered owner of the Yamaha R15 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-CH-6793, which she purchased in the year 2017. Ever since the purchase, the vehicle has been used by her and by her family members for their personal and domestic needs. On 24.08.2024, Crime No.471 of 2024 came to be registered on the file of Koodalpudur Police Station, Madurai City, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act.

3. In the said crime, one individual has been arrayed as Accused No.4 and is alleged to have been involved in the possession and dealing of ganja and also in possession of a weapon covered by the Arms Act. During the course of the investigation, the said Accused No.4 is stated to have made a confession that he had used the petitioner’s Yamaha R15 motorcycle for the purpose of the alleged NDPS offence. Based solely on such statement, the respondent police seized the petitioner’s motorcycle, treating it as a conveyance involved in the commission of the said offences. The petitioner asserts that she herself was not present at the time of occurrence, that she was not found in possession of any contraband, and that there is no allegation of knowledge or connivance on her part.

4. She further states that the investigation, as per the prosecution, is almost completed and that the requirement of the vehicle for the purpose of investigation is practically over. The petitioner complains that her motorcycle is presently lying in the open at the police station or at some open yard, directly exposed to rain, sunlight, and other natural elements and, consequently, undergoing continuous deterioration in its mechanical condition and market value. She submits that if the motorcycle continues to be kept idle and exposed for a prolonged period, it will soon become unfit for road use and will virtually lose its value, causing serious financial loss and hardship to her.

5. The petitioner undertakes to produce the vehicle before the Court or before the Investigating Officer as and when required, not to alienate, encumber, or modify the vehicle, and not to permit any unlawful use of the same. She relies upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ¹1 (2002) 10 SCC 283, that vehicles and other valuable properties should not be allowed to rot in police custody and that Courts must ordinarily release such properties on interim custody with appropriate safeguards. On these grounds, she seeks an order directing the return of the motorcycle to her on interim custody pending trial.

Case of the Prosecution:

6. The stand of the prosecution, as seen from the objection filed before the learned Trial Court and the submissions made before this Court, is that the Yamaha R15 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-CH-6793 was seized on 24.08.2024 in connection with Crime No.471 of 202