IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN A.Kailangiri S/o. P. Alagar ..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, PEW Gummidipoondi Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Case filed under Sec.438 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Special Judge under the NDPS Act at Chennai vide order dated 10.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.7310 of 2025 in Crime No.116 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent, and direct the respondent to return of Lorry Goods Carrier, Ashok Leyland Ltd. Bearing Reg No.TN-54-AB-7791 with goods mentioned in E-Way Bill No.831582486496 dated 24.09.2025 and E Way Bill No.841582647249, dated 24.09.2025, therein to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arulram For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed for return of lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-54 AB-7719, which was seized during the course of investigation in Crime No. 16 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sec.8(c) read with 20(b), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), has preferred this Revision.

2. The petitioner is not an accused in the F.I.R. The gist of allegation is that the petitioner's driver had transported 12 kgs. of ganja in the petitioner’s vehicle from Orissa to Trichy, which was intercepted by the respondent police near Gummidipoondi. During the course of investigation, the vehicle was seized. The petitioner sought for return of vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the learned judge on 10.12.2025 on the ground that if the vehicle is released, the accused will commit similar offences and that under Sec.52A of NDPS Act, the vehicle has to be disposed of by the Drugs Disposal Committee.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused; that the vehicle is kept in open place from the date of seizure i.e. on 24.09.2025 and the value of the vehicle will be diminished if it is not returned to the petitioner; that the petitioner is ready to comply with any stringent condition that this Court may impose; and that hence, interim custody of the vehicle may be handed over to him.

4. The learned Government Advocate, per contra, would submit that the vehicle is involved in the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act; and that if the vehicle is released, similar offences would be committed. However, the learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that the petitioner is not an accused.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment of Division Bench reported in 2025 SCC Online 2276 in the case of Denash vs. State of Tamil Nadu, had held as follows :-

“21.Thus, a conjoint and holistic reading of Sections 60(3) and

63, makes it abundantly clear that the power to determine whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and not in any administrative or executive authority such as the Drug Disposal Committee. The statute stipulates that where an owner proves absence of knowledge or connivance, the Special Court is duty bound to hear such claim before deciding the fate of the seized vehicle including confiscation.

………...

26. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision makes it abundantly clear that confiscation or otherwise of a conveyance is to be determined finally, only upon conclusion of the trial, and until such adjudication, the ownership rights of the owner, who prima facie claiming the seized vehicle cannot be extinguished. It further underscores that the power of confiscation is coupled with a duty to observe procedural fairness and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to an innocent owner who had neither knowledge nor willfully participated or connived to commit the offence under the NDP