The ownership of a vehicle seized under NDPS Act must be respected if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use; interim custody can be granted subject to conditions.

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

Heard Mr.P.Senguttuarasan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order of Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai District, dated 22.09.2025 in Cr.M.P.No.1523 of 2025 and to direct the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai District to return the vehicle, viz., KTM Duke-200 two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-72-AT-7009, to Revision Petitioner.

3. Mr.P.Senguttuarasan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner, would submit that the subject vehicle originally belonged to Suryaprakash. Petitioner purchased the used vehicle from Suryaprakash on 10.07.2024 and transfer of ownership in RC ook is under progress. Since the date of purchase, Petitioner has been regularly using the vehicle. While so, one Jaya Venkatesh, friend of Petitioner's son, borrowed the said vehicle from his son for his personal use on 25.07.2024. Thereafter, Petitioner came to know that his vehicle was seized by Respondent Police for illegal transportation of 1.100 kg of ganja. A case was registered in Crime No. 154 of 2024, dated 26.07.2024, for offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(II)( B) of the NDPS Act and Jaya Venkatesh was arrayed as Accused No.3. He would further submit that petitioner has not been arraigned as accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further 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. The impugned order suffers from error apparent inasmuch as the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nahoorhani's case relied by the court below, has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Denash Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1032. He would further submit that petitioner is the lawful owner and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the said vehicle was involved in the serious offence of transporting ganja and therefore, this Court must exercise restraint while entertaining these petitions and the vehicle may be released subject to conditions. He would also submit that in case, confiscation proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that petition for release of vehicle 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.

7. 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 o