Special Courts possess the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the Act, notwithstanding the existence of administrative disposal committees. Innocent owners whose vehicles were stolen and used for illegal activities without their knowledge or connivance are entitled to interim release pending trial.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 60 and 63 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Interim custody of seized vehicle - Jurisdiction of Special Court - Whether administrative committee has exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of seized vehicles - Held, Special Court retains jurisdiction to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the Act - Rules of 2022 do not divest Special Court of its power to adjudicate interim release - Confiscation is a final measure to be determined upon conclusion of trial - Innocent owner whose vehicle was stolen and used for illegal transportation without knowledge or connivance is entitled to interim release. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 29)

(B) Interim Custody - Principles for release - Where owner is not an accused and vehicle was stolen prior to commission of offence, vehicle should be released on superdari - Purpose of interim release is to prevent deterioration of property while in police custody. (Paras 34, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought interim custody of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence involving the transportation of contraband. The petitioner contended that the vehicle was stolen prior to the incident and that the petitioner was not involved in the offence. The lower court rejected the request, relying on the view that the administrative committee had exclusive jurisdiction over such property.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory framework of the Act vests the power to determine confiscation and interim custody in the Special Court. The administrative rules regarding disposal do not override the judicial power of the court to grant interim relief to bona fide owners.

Issues: Whether the administrative committee has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the interim custody of vehicles seized under the Act, and whether an innocent owner whose vehicle was stolen is entitled to interim release.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Act does not bar the Special Court from exercising its discretion to release a vehicle in interim custody. Depriving an innocent owner of property without judicial scrutiny is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and natural justice.

Result: Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; vehicle released on conditions.

Judgement Key Points

No, the Registration Certificate (RC) for the vehicle (Yamaha R15, TN-63-BW-8537) is not expired. (!) (!) (!) (!)

The court verified the RC produced by the petitioner, confirming lawful ownership, with no mention of expiry. (!) The order requires surrender of the original RC Book to the trial court, treating it as valid documentation. (!) (!)

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order made in Crl.M.P.No.3784 of 2025 dated 30.09.2025 on the file of the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, whereby, petitioner's request for interim custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63- BW-8537 Yamaha R.15 in Cr.No.431 of 2025 on the file of Karimedu Police Station, Madurai was rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned order places reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Nahoorhani vs State in Crl.RC(MD).No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023, above Judgment has been overruled by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Denash Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1032. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and produced the Registration Certificate in support thereof. Registration Certificate was perused by Mr.Karunanidhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and would confirm that petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject vehicle.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that on 31.08.2025, at about 07.00 p.m., petitioner parked the vehicle near Manish Theatre and following morning i.e., on 01.09.2025 at about 06.00 a.m., he noticed that the vehicle was missing/stolen. Immediately, petitioner lodged a complaint on the same day, i.e., 01.09.2025 before the Singanallur Police Station along with CCTV footage.

4. Thereafter, it was found that the above vehicle was involved in a illegal transportation of 1.200Kgs of Ganja. He further submits that the offence was committed after the vehicle was stolen and complaint lodged by petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence or offender.

5. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that the impugned order rejecting the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle, as observed supra, was rejected by relying upon the order of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos.646 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.12.2024, wherein, it was held that with the introduction of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, it was only the Drug Disposal Committee constituted under the said Rules, which would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disposal of the properties seized under NDPS Act. That being the case, power/jurisdiction to decide the interim custody of the property including vehicles seized under the NDPS Act must also vest exclusively with the Drug Disposal Committee.

6. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had however after referring to the following judgments, viz.,

(i) Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379

(ii) Judgment of the Apex Court in Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 (7) KHC 273;

(iii) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rathnamma Vs. State represented by PSI Channagiri Police Station Davanagere (Criminal Petition No.3571/2021);

(iv) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shams Tavrej Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154;

(v) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 583;

(vi) Judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India Vs.Tejinder Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 729, held that the jurisdictional Special Court under the NDPS Act would have the power to consider the grant of interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act invoking the power under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

7. Divergent views expressed by different High Courts has now been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Denash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1032, wherein, the decision in Nahoorhani's case relied upon by this Court while disposing of Crl.R.C. (MD).No.646 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.12.2024 was overruled. The judgment of this Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75971

Cases Referred (4)