Drug Disposal Committee, Not Courts, To Decide Interim Custody of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act: Madras High Court - 2025-08-11

Drug Disposal Committee is the Competent Authority for Custody of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act, Rules Madras HC

MADURAI: In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural framework for properties seized in drug-related offences, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the power to grant interim custody of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) rests exclusively with the Drug Disposal Committee, not the regular criminal courts.

Justice K. Murali Shankar, while deciding a large batch of over 25 criminal revision petitions, asserted that the special provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, override the general powers of the court under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Case Background

The Court was addressing numerous petitions filed by accused persons, their relatives, and third-party vehicle owners challenging lower court orders that had dismissed their pleas for the interim release of vehicles and cell phones seized in connection with various NDPS cases. The lower courts had refused to grant interim custody, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners’ counsels argued that in the absence of an explicit bar in the NDPS Act, courts could invoke their general powers under Section 451/457 of the CrPC (now Section 497 BNSS) to grant interim custody. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai , which advocates for the timely release of seized vehicles to prevent their deterioration in police stations.

Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the NDPS Act is a special law with a self-contained mechanism for the disposal of seized properties. He contended that the 2014 amendment to Section 52A, which brought "conveyances" under its ambit, and the subsequent 2022 Rules, established a clear procedure for pre-trial disposal by a designated Drug Disposal Committee, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts for interim custody matters.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Justice K. Murali Shankar conducted a thorough analysis of the interplay between the general provisions of the CrPC/BNSS and the special law of the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that Section 5 of the CrPC itself states that special laws prevail over the Code.

The judgment heavily relied on the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act and the directions from the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal , which led to the framing of the 2022 Rules. The Court observed:

"Since the amendment provisions of NDPS Act and newly introduced 2022 Rules mandate the disposal of the property including conveyances seized under NDPS Act within a short span of time irrespective of trial, the question of granting interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of the main case does not arise at all."

The Court explicitly held that the Drug Disposal Committee is the competent authority for the disposal of seized property. Addressing the argument that the Committee lacks the power to grant interim custody, the Court invoked the legal maxim 'ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest' (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist). Justice Shankar reasoned:

"...when Drug Disposal Committee is conferred with powers to decide about the final disposal of the property including the vehicles itself, the contention that the Drug Disposal Committee has no power to grant interim custody, has no legs to stand."

The judgment establishes that the power for final disposal implicitly includes the power to grant interim orders.

Final Decision

Based on this reasoning, the High Court dismissed the majority of the revision petitions seeking the interim return of seized vehicles. It directed the petitioners to approach the respective Drug Disposal Committees with their representations, which are to be decided on merit within six weeks.

However, the Court made an exception for seized cell phones. Noting the prosecution's lack of objection and the nature of the property, it ordered the interim release of iPhones and other mobiles to the petitioners upon execution of a bond, with the condition that they not be alienated during the trial.

This landmark order provides much-needed clarity on a contentious procedural issue, reinforcing the specialized mechanism under the NDPS Act and streamlining the process for handling seized conveyances.