The court emphasized that the ownership of seized vehicles cannot be ignored and must be adjudicated by a Special Court to ensure fairness and justice.

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

Heard Mr.R.Jothiraj, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

2. Present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P.No.2991 of 2025 by an order dated 06.08.2025, whereby the petition filed under Sections 497 and 503(2) of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle bearing Reg.No.TS.33-H-0549, was rejected.

3. Mr.R.Jothiraj, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle, viz., White Colour Suzuki Brezza Car bearing Registration No.TS.33-H-0549. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent and a case was registered in NCB.F.No.48/01/07/2025/NCB-MDS, for the offence under Sections 8(c)r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, alleging that the said vehicle was involved in transportation of prohibited contraband, Ganja. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.2991 of 2025 before Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 06.08.2025. Aggrieved, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would further submit that Petitioner has leased out the aforesaid vehicle through her husband on 13.02.2025 to one LD Cars India Private Limited, SV No.37, Main Road Medipally, Hyderabad – 500 098, for a period of one year and the same was also placed on record along with the booking details of the customer only to substantiate that Petitioner has no knowledge or involvement in the alleged offence and she has not been arraigned as an accused. He would also submit that petitioner and her husband 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 Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent, who confirmed that petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and petitioner along with her husband must co-operate in confiscation proceedings 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 in 2022 (7) KHC 273

(iii) Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rathnamma Vs. State represented by PSI Channagiri Police Station Davanagere (Criminal Petition No.3571/2021);

(iv) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shams Tavrej Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 1154

(v) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported