IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-11-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI NANTHINI D/O Natarajan, No.8, Kumaran Nagar, Cuddalore.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police PEW Periyapalayam Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

..Respondent(s)

To set aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Crl.MP.NO.5977 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, EC and NDPS act court, Chennai direct return of the seized property, namely iPhone 14, to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Gopalakrishnan For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated

26.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5977 of 2025 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed for return of I phone.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on the secret information, the respondent police have intercepted the A1’s vehicle and found that he along with other accused was in possession of 1.250 kgs. of ganja. Hence, a case has been registered in Crime No.32 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the vehicle involved was seized and produced before the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that she is the third party. Before the trial court, she filed a petition for return of vehicle and the same was dismissed by the trial court holding that the petitioner has not produced the invoice bill to show her ownership. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court for the release of the vehicle.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is not an accused in this case and the vehicle in question was involved in an offence under NDPS Act. Hence, he objected for return of the vehicle.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. On seeing the facts, the petitioner is not an accused and as on date, she has produced the bill with regard to purchase of I phone on 10.07.2024 and she is a third party. Considering that, this Court is inclined to order the return the mobile phone to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Crl.MP No.5977 of 2025 by the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, is directed to return the I mobile phone to the petitioner, forthwith on the following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate to the credit of Crime No.32 of

2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

(ii) the petitioner shall deposit the original invoice or bill of the phone before the concerned Magistrate.

(iii) the seized items should be photographed at the cost of the petitioner herein and a list is to be prepared and the same is to be signed by the petitioner.

(iv) the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the mobile.

(v) the petitioner shall produce the mobile before the Court and the respondent police as and when required;

(vi) If any of the conditions are violated, this order automatically stands cancelled.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.

25-11-2025 RPP To

1. Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police PEW Periyapalayam Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

RPP

25-11-2025