Interim custody of a seized vehicle under NDPS is justified if the owner proves no knowledge or involvement in illegal acts, respecting natural justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.R.Anand, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.P.Kottaichamy, learned Government Advocate for Respondent.

2. Present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.2025 made in Cr.M.P.No.3601 of 2025 passed by Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, whereby the petition under Section 497 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Container Lorry bearing Registration No.TN88 K 3720 (Chasis No.MBICTCHD4KEBE3687), was rejected on the premise that said vehicle was used for smuggling ganja and if handed over to petitioner, it would again be used for smuggling ganja.

3. Mr.R.Anand, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is owner of vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Container Lorry bearing Registration No.TN88 K 3720 (Chasis No. MBICTCHD4KEBE3687). The said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.79 of 2025, dated 09.07.2025 for offences punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985, for illegal transportation of 1.100Kgs of Ganja. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.3601 of 2025 before Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 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 27.10.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and she would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of Registration Certificate of said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.P.Kottaichamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certification stands in the name of petitioner.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows:-

“The respondent further submits that in the event of returning the vehicle to the petitioner certainly he will commit similar offence in future also. Moreover, the subject vehicle is required for marking it as one of the material object before the trial at the time of trial. If it is returned to the petitioner, he will either hide it at unknown place or vanish the same by detaching the spares of the vehicle. Further this is a case of serious nature in which repeatedly our Hon'ble High Court has held the vehicles involved in the commission of offence cannot be returned to the owner unless extraordinary circumstances exist. In the given case, during the course of investigation, all the witnesses have categorically given statements to the effect that the said vehicle was used by the accused persons for the purpose of keeping the contraband namely the Ganja to a quantity of 2.200 kilograms.”

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 Commi