Property seized under NDPS Act cannot be returned without a judicial hearing if the owner proves lack of knowledge regarding contraband use.

ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

The petitioner, owner of Bajaj KTM 200 Duke bearing registration No.TN-25-CK-5085 filed a petition for return of property before the Special Court for trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act Cases. The Trial Judge returned the petition for the reason “This application is returned based on the Hon’ble High Court Madras Circular in ROC.No.70917-A/2025/F1 dated 01.09.2025”. Against which, the present petition filed.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a daily waged and he uses the bike for his work. The petitioner recently purchased the bike with financial assistance from Bajaj Auto Credit Limited. One Naveenkumar, who is a resident of Avalurpettai and known to the petitioner through his relative requested and taken the bike from the petitioner to visit his family members at Avalurpettai. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the bike was involved and seized in Crime No.24 of 2025 for the offence under Section 8 (c), 20(b)(ii(A) of NDPS Act and the said Naveenkumar was arrayed as A2 in this case. The petitioner is not an accused and he was not aware of the intention of said Naveenkumar. The petitioner was not aware as to for what reason, the bike was seized. The petitioner approached the respondent but the respondent failed to provide any proper reason.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in(2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein the Apex Court had clearly given the guidelines directing the Courts to return the vehicles. He further referred to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.33623 of 2025 (Mohamed Abdul Kader Seyed vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Ambattur Police Station, Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW), Ambattur) wherein this Court referred to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Denash vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in2025 SCC Online SC 2276 following another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam reported in 2025 INSC 32 and held that the Trial Court returning the return of proper petition citing the ROC not even numbering and hearing the parties and not considering the case on merits is in direct contravention to the Apex Court judgment and hence, to consider the petition on merits and in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, he is not involved in the case, his vehicle was parked in a far away place and the seizure shown is stage mannered, the petitioner has got proof to prove fabrication and unless an opportunity is given, he cannot substantiate his claim. Hence, prayed for appropriate orders.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner’s vehicle was involved in NDPS case. One Naveenkumar, who is known to the petitioner used the vehicle and contraband was seized from the vehicle. He would submit that since the vehicle was involved in NDPS case, the Trial Court following the ROC issued by this Court in ROC.No.70917- A/2025/F1 dated 01.09.2025, dismissed the same. He fairly submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. Even in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, four contingencies given in considering the return of property petition. The petitioner fall under first contingency. The petitioner being the owner of the car and from whom, the contraband seized and hence, the Trial Court not entertaining and returning the petition is proper. Hence, prayed for dismissal.

5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, without going into the merits of the case and the contentions of the p