The court established the necessity of judicial scrutiny and opportunity for hearing prior to the confiscation of seized vehicles under the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner, owner of Maruthi Suzuki Tour S Car bearing registration No.TN-38-DM-4359 filed a petition for return of property under Section 497 r/w. 503 of BNSS in Crime No.568 of 2025. The Trial Judge returned the petition for the reason “As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in ROC.No.10143/A/2025/F1 dated 18.06.2025 all the properties concerned in the cases under NDPS Act are to be handed over to Drug Disposal Committee for destruction and disposed as the case may be. Hence, the petition is returned”. Against which, the present petition filed.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 26.09.2025 at about 5.58 hours the petitioner took a room and staying in PLA Ram Residency in Karur District, on the same day at about 13.00 hours the respondent took the petitioner from the Hotel, went to Saravanampatty and showed arrest in Crime No.568 of 2025 projecting that the petitioner was found near Sahara City Rountana, Saravanampatty in Coimbatore District as though the petitioner’s vehicle was intercepted by the respondent and during search, found petitioner along with another accused/A2 jointly in possession of 2kgs of ganja. Both the petitioner and A2/Anandraj arrested. At the time of arrest, the petitioner’s car was parked in PLA Ram Residency in Karur. The GPS tracking of the above said car would prove the same. He would submit that the petitioner’s vehicle is used as tourist car and his only income is hiring his vehicle and if the same is further detained, the petitioner would be deprived of his earning and livelihood. Further, the petitioner taken financial assistance for the car and he has to pay EMI. Further, the petitioner’s family is dependent on the petitioner’s income. He further submitted that the detention of the vehicle would make the vehicle unusable and rusted.

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 in 2025 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 on 26.09.2025 the respondent police received secret information that two persons in a car near Saravanampatty Sahara City rountana were selling ganja to college students. Based on this information, the respondent went to the spot and conduced vehicle check. At that time, Maruthi Suzuki Tour S car bearing registration No.TN-38-DM-4359 was intercepted and thereafter, the