Ownership rights must be acknowledged in interim custody claims of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act, especially when no charges are laid against the owner.

ORDER :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

Heard Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2550 of 2025 passed by Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, whereby petitioner's request for interim custody of the vehicle viz., Pulsar RS 200 bearing Registration No.TN-72-CB-3114 in Cr.No. 265 of 2024 on the file of Pettai Police Station, Tirunelveli, was rejected.

3. Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle viz., Pulsar RS 200 bearing Registration No.TN-72-CB-3114. The said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.265 of 2024, dated 04.12.2024 for offence under Sections 8 (c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for illegal transportation of 1.500Kgs of Ganja. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.2550 of 2025 before the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act Cases, Madurai, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 25.08.2025. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 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 ofNahoorhani 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 in2025 Live Law (SC) 1032. He would further submit that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent 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 refer to 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 in2022 (7) KHC 273

(iii) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rathnamma Vs. State represented by PSI Channagiri Police St