Administrative disposal committees under the NDPS Act do not oust the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts to order interim custody of seized vehicles under the provisions of the Cr.P.C./BNSS, provided suitable conditions are imposed to preserve the property and ensure its production during trial.

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1238 of 2025 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, dismissing the petitioner’s request for interim custody of her Honda Activa scooter bearing Registration No. TN-58-BX-5095, seized in connection with Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of Checkanurani Police Station for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The learned Special Court refused interim custody primarily on the ground that the vehicle had been “sent to the Disposal Committee” and that, if released, the petitioner may not produce it in future.

Case of the Prosecution:

3. The prosecution version, as seen from the FIR and the objection filed before the Special Court, can be summarised thus:

On 25.01.2025, the respondent/Checkanurani Police registered Crime No.22 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the NDPS Act, relating to possession/transport of ganja in a quantity falling under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). In the course of investigation, the police seized a Honda Activa scooter bearing Registration No. TN-58-BX-5095, treating it as a conveyance used in the commission of the NDPS offence. The scooter was taken into custody and kept in the police station as case property.

4. In the written objection to Crl.M.P.No.1238 of 2025, the prosecution has stated that the said vehicle has been sent to the Disposal Committee on 22.03.2025 for necessary action under the NDPS disposal procedures. It is contended that if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, she may not produce it in future, thereby frustrating the process of disposal / confiscation and prejudicing the prosecution. On these grounds, particularly, the forwarding to Disposal Committee and the apprehension of non-production, the prosecution opposed interim release of the vehicle.

Case of the Petitioner:

5. The petitioner’s case, as projected in her petition and in this revision, is as follows:

The petitioner is the registered owner of the Honda Activa scooter bearing Registration No. TN-58-BX-5095. The Registration Certificate stands in her name. On 25.01.2025, the said vehicle was found involved in Crime No.22 of 2025 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 NDPS Act on the file of the respondent police station, in which she asserts that she had no role in the alleged NDPS offence. The respondent seized her scooter as part of the NDPS case and has kept it in the police station since then.

6. The petitioner contends that the scooter is lying in an open yard, exposed to rain, sun and other natural elements. As a result, it is undergoing natural decay, losing mechanical soundness and market value. She asserts that, if the vehicle continues to remain in the respondent’s custody, it will eventually become useless, causing her serious hardship and financial loss. The petitioner states that she requires the scooter for her day-to-day commuting and livelihood, and that she is ready to produce the vehicle whenever required by the Court and to abide by any conditions imposed. On these premises, she sought interim custody of the Honda Activa in Crl.M.P.No.1238 of 2025, which came to be dismissed.

Gist of the Trial Court Order:

7. By order dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1238 of 2025, the learned Principal Special Jud