Special Courts under the NDPS Act retain the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized conveyances and property under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS, as the 2022 Rules do not divest the court of its judicial authority or override the rights of innocent owners.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 60 and 63 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, 497 and 503 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 451 and 457 - Interim custody of seized property - Jurisdiction of Special Court vs. Drug Disposal Committee - The introduction of the 2022 Rules does not divest the Special Court of its jurisdiction to entertain applications for interim custody of seized conveyances or property - The power to determine confiscation vests in the Special Court, not in administrative or executive authorities - Procedural rules cannot override substantive rights or the parent statute. (Paras 6, 9, 21, 29)

(B) Confiscation of property - Principles of natural justice - Confiscation is a measure resulting in deprivation of property and must be preceded by a hearing - Innocent owners or bona fide claimants whose property is misused without their knowledge or connivance should not be subjected to undue hardship - Judicial discretion to release property on superdari is guided by the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 22, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the release of a seized vehicle and a mobile phone, which were taken into custody by the police in connection with an alleged offence. The lower court rejected the request, relying on the view that the Drug Disposal Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over such property under the 2022 Rules. The petitioner challenged this order, asserting ownership and lack of involvement in the alleged offence.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Special Court retains the power to grant interim custody of seized property under the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure codes. The 2022 Rules do not exclude the judicial authority of the Special Court to adjudicate upon the rights of claimants. The court emphasized that confiscation is a final determination to be made only upon the conclusion of the trial.

Issues: Whether the Drug Disposal Committee has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the interim custody of vehicles and property seized under the NDPS Act, or whether the Special Court retains this power.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the 2022 Rules are subordinate legislation and cannot override the parent statute or divest the Special Court of its judicial power to grant interim custody. The statutory scheme requires that an innocent owner be given an opportunity to prove lack of knowledge or connivance before any final order of confiscation is passed.

Result: Petition allowed.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1503 of 2025

S.Bahardeen ... Petitioner

vs.

The Sate of Tamil Nadu, Represented through its,

Inspector of Police,

Kotticode Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

Crime No.114 of 2025. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023 , to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai pertaining to Crime No.114 of 2025, on the file of the Respondent Police and consequently direct the Respondent to grant the interim custody of the Petitioner's Vehicle bearing TN 75 AV 3501 PLATINA 100 ES (Engine No. PFXPNA23360 and Chasis No.MD2A76AXXNPA42279) and Mobile Phone VIVO Y56 Model (IMEI-860374069246351) along with

SIM card to the Petitioner by allowing this Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

Heard Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai pertaining to Crime No.114 of 2025, on the file of Respondent Police and consequently direct the Respondent to grant the interim custody of the Petitioner's Vehicle bearing TN 75 AV 3501 PLATINA 100 ES (Engine No. PFXPNA23360 and Chassis No.MD2A76AXXNPA42279) and Mobile Phone VIVO Y56 Model (IMEI-860374069246351) along with SIM card to the petitioner.

3. 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 bearing registration number TN 75 AV 3501, PLATINA 100 ES (Engine No. PFXPNA23360 and Chassis No. MD2A76AXXNPA42279), as well as the mobile phone VIVO Y56 (IMEI 860374069246351), both of which have been seized. He further submits that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence. He produced the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle in support thereof and the same was perused by Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent who confirmed that petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject vehicle.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these vehicles were involved in the serious offence of transporting ganja, and therefore, this Court must exercise restraint while entertaining these petitions. He would then submit that the release of the vehicles may be granted subject to certain conditions. However, he has strong objections to the request for the release of the mobile phone. He would contend that the mobile phone contain crucial details and data, and the Court should not grant interim custody of the phone as it may cause disadvantage to the prosecution and there is a possibility of tampering.

5. At this juncture, learned Counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that petitioner has no difficulty in cooperating with the prosecution and permitting data contained in mobile phone to be retrieved/extracted by respondent and transmitted/migrated to any device of the respondent and undertakes not to tamper with such data. Hence, learned counsel prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to respondent Police to return the seized properties to petitioner. He also undertakes that petitioner would produce the two

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQS.Bahardeen – AppellantVersusState Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent

Special Courts under the NDPS Act retain the jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized conveyances and property under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS, as the 2022 Rules do not divest the court of its judicial authority or override the rights of innocent owners.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
S.Bahardeen – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In – Respondent