Car owners, not charged in drug cases, may have vehicles returned unless shown knowledge or involvement in crimes.

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent.

2. Present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.457 of 2025, dated 30.12.2025, whereby the petition filed under Sections 497 and 503(2) of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Yamaha MT 15 bearing Registration No.TN 92 L 9579, was rejected.

3. Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle viz., Yamaha MT 15 bearing Registration No.TN 92 L 9579. The said vehicle was seized by Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.279 of 2025, dated 10.11.2025 for offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, alleging that the said vehicle was involved in transportation of 15 grams of Ganja. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.457 of 2025 before Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 30.12.2025. Aggrieved, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would further submit that Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle; she has no knowledge or involvement in the alleged offence and she has not been arraigned as accused. He would also submit that Petitioner 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 learned Government Advocate for Respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certificate stands in the name of Petitioner.

5. Learned Government Advocate for Respondent would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and Petitioner 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 in 2022 SCC OnLine 583

(vi) Judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India Vs.Tejinder Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 729,

held that the jurisdictional Special Court under the NDPS Act would have the power to consider the grant of interim custody of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act invoking the power under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

8. Divergent views expressed by different H