Courts retain jurisdiction under criminal procedure laws to order the interim release of seized vehicles under the drug control regime. Administrative disposal rules are supplemental and cannot extinguish the judicial authority to protect the properties of innocent third-party owners pending trial.

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant herein has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave for assailing the judgment dated 20^th December, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, (1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.) in Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.1021 of 2024, whereby the prayer made by the appellant for interim custody of his lorry bearing registration no. TN 52 Q 0315 (Ashok Leyland, 14 wheeler), (2 Hereinafter, being referred to as “the vehicle”.), was rejected.

Brief Facts: -

4. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle in question, which was lawfully hired for transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets from M/s S.S. Steel and Power, Chhattisgarh to Ashok Steels, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu. For this purpose, the vehicle had been assigned to driver Kannan @ Venkatesan (accused No. 1), Deva (accused No. 2), Senthamalivalavan (accused No. 3), and Tamil Selvan (accused No. 4). During the course of transit, on 14^th July, 2024, the officers of Police Station Neyveli Township, intercepted and searched the vehicle, whereupon 1.5 kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath the driver Kannan’s (accused No. 1) seat, and an additional 1.5 kilograms each was recovered from the personal possession of the other three accused, thereby bringing the total quantity of seized Ganja to 6 kilograms. All four accused persons present in the vehicle were arrested. Pursuant to the seizure, First Information Report No. 220 of 2024 was registered at P.S. Neyveli Township, District Cuddalore, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 , (3 For short “NDPS Act”.). Upon conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the aforesaid four accused for the said offences. It is important to note that the appellant was not arraigned as an accused in the report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (4 For short “CrPC”.) [Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (5 For short “BNSS”.)].

5. Being aggrieved by the continued seizure of his valuable transport vehicle, the appellant moved an application under Section 497 BNSS [ Section 451 CrPC], being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5495 of 2024, before Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, (6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Special Court”.), seeking interim release of the seized vehicle on supurdagi pending conclusion of trial.

6. The Special Court, vide order dated 9^th September, 2024 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the appellant on the ground that the vehicle seized under the provisions of the NDPS Act was not amenable to release on interim custody by invoking the provisions under Sections 451 and 452 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 498 BNSS], as the same was liable to confiscation under Section 63 of the NDPS Act.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court for assailing the order of the Special Court by filing Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1021 of 2024 which came to be rejected by the impugned judgment.

8. The High Court held that pursuant to introduction of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, (7 For short “Rules of 2022”.), the Drug Disposal Committee alone had the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disposal of the property which included seized drugs as well as the conveyances. The High Court further held that since the Rules of 2022 vested exclusive jurisdiction with the Drug Disposal Committee, it could be presumed that the Committee was empowered to consider requests for interim release of a seized conveyance as well. Accordingly, the revision preferred by the appellant was dismissed upon which, the appellant is before us by way of the instant appeal with special leave.

9. Learned