A true vehicle owner not implicated in a narcotics crime is entitled to interim custody of their vehicle pending trial, emphasizing procedural fairness and rights under statutory law.

ORDER :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

Heard M/s.S.Modharshini, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.P.Kottaisamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.539 of 2025 passed by Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, whereby petitioner's request for interim custody of the vehicle viz., Yamaha Fascino bearing Registration No.TN-57-CV-7947 in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul, was rejected.

3. M/s.S.Modharshini, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as a primary coordinator at MAM Alqalam, Kodaikanal and in the year 2024, she purchased a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-57-CV-7947, Yamaha Fascino for her everyday transport. On the date of alleged offence, petitioner's husband's friend had borrowed her vehicle and had used it for the alleged offence of transporting 150 grams of two ganja plants. Hence, the said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.17 of 2025, for offence under Sections 8(b) r/w. 20(a)(1) and 25 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for illegal transportation of 150 grams of two ganja plants. Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.539 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 18.03.2025. 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 of Nahoorhani v. 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 v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1032. He would further submit that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 Sa