Madras High Court · 2025

CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025and he and his minor children will suffer severe hardship.6. The 1st petitioner avers that he is ready to produce the vehicle whenever required, to comply with any conditions, and that there is no justification in law for refusing interim custody to the legal heirs and claimants. On these grounds, he prayed for interim return of the vehicle.Gist of the Trial Court order:7. By order dated 20.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1358 of 2025, the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dismissed the petitioner’s application. The reasoning, in substance, is as follows:The vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-14-U-1924 Maruti Suzuki Dzire stands seized in connection with Crime No.438 of 2024 relating to NDPS offences. The prosecution has objected to interim release, stating that Accused No.1 was selling ganja using the said vehicle. It has also been stated that the vehicle has been produced before the Drug Disposal Committee. The Court accepted the prosecution’s apprehension that, if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he may not produce it in 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025future, particularly when it has already been taken up for disposal proceedings. On these grounds, and having regard to the NDPS nature of the offence, the learned Special Judge held that the petitioner is not entitled to interim custody and dismissed the petition.Grounds of Revision:8. The petitioner assails the impugned order on, inter alia, the following grounds:The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioners, as surviving spouse and children and the legal heirs of the registered owner, is a prima facie rightful claimants to the car, and that there is no automatic bar against granting interim custody to such an owner, even where NDPS offences are alleged. The Court below erroneously treated the production of the vehicle before the Drug Disposal Committee as if it ousted or curtailed the Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 451 / 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 (now Sections 497 / 503 BNSS), 2023, contrary to the statutory scheme and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions, including Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu1.1 2025 SCC OnLine 22766/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 20259. The learned Judge failed to consider Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, which mandate a judicial determination of confiscation, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the owner / claimants. There is no confiscation order; only seizure and forwarding. The impugned order does not advert to, or apply, the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat2, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam3 and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu4, which together require Courts to avoid unnecessary destruction of vehicles in police custody and recognise that administrative disposal mechanisms cannot override the jurisdiction of criminal Courts.10. The learned Special Court did not properly weigh the hardship and irreparable loss that would be caused to the 1st petitioner and his minor children if the vehicle continues to be kept in the open, leading to deterioration and loss of value. The impugned order is cryptic and one-sided, resting solely on apprehensions of non-production, without exploring whether such apprehensions can be effectively addressed by stringent conditions, bonds, sureties and undertakings.2 (2002) 10 SCC 2833 2025 INSC 324 Supra 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025Submissions:11. Mr. S. Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the 1st petitioner and his minor children are the legal heirs of the deceased registered owner (Nithiya), and thus the rightful claimants to the vehicle; there is no contest on this aspect. Section 36-C of the NDPS Act expressly applies the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and now BNSS) to proceedings before the learned Special Courts save as otherwise provided; Section 51 of the NDPS Act applies the Code to searches and seizures, to the extent not inconsistent.12. Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, 2023, confer on criminal Courts the power to order proper custody, interim release and disposal of property seized during investigation or produced as case property. Confiscation of a vehicle in NDPS matters lies within Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, which require a judicial process with notice and hearing; until such confiscation is ordered, the claim of the owner to interim custody cannot be shut out merely by reference to the Drug Disposal Committee.8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 202513. Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat5, he submitted that keeping vehicles in police custody for long periods is undesirable and that they should normally be returned to the owner on proper terms, since they rapidly deteriorate and become junk. Placing reliance on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam6, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorised typical situations of vehicle seizure and has clearly indicated that, where there is a bona fide owner / claimant, the vehicle should usually be released on superdari, subject to conditions protecting the prosecution’s interest.14. He further stressed the case of Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu7, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that administrative disposal mechanisms and NDPS disposal rules cannot divest Courts of their powers under Sections 451 / 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 (497 / 503 BNSS, 2023) and cannot override the owner’s statutory rights under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is prepared to execute a substantial bond, furnish solvent sureties and file an undertaking not 5 (2002) 10 SCC 2836 2025 INSC 327 2025 SCC OnLine 22769/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025to alienate or misuse the vehicle and to produce it whenever required. On these grounds, he urged that the impugned order be set aside and interim custody granted.15. Per contra, Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that, the case in Crime No.438 of 2024 involves serious offences under the NDPS Act, with an allegation that Accused No.1 (the petitioner) was selling ganja using the Maruti Suzuki Dzire car. The vehicle is thus an instrumentality of the offence and is liable, in due course, for confiscation under the NDPS Act. The vehicle has already been produced before the Drug Disposal Committee, and disposal / confiscation steps have been initiated.16. There is a reasonable apprehension that if the vehicle is released to the petitioner, he may not produce it in future, especially considering his status as an accused. This would prejudice the prosecution and frustrate confiscation proceedings. Having regard to the gravity of NDPS offences and these apprehensions, the learned Special Judge rightly exercised caution and refused interim custody. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision.10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 202517. Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.Point for Consideration:18. In light of the rival submissions, the principal point for determination is whether the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, was right in refusing interim custody of the Maruti Suzuki Dzire car bearing Registration No. TN-14-U-1924 to the petitioner on the grounds that the vehicle was allegedly used for selling ganja and has been produced before the Drug Disposal Committee, or whether, in view of Sections 36-C, 51, 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, 2023, and the principles laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat8, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam9 and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu10, the petitioner is entitled to interim custody subject to stringent conditions.8 (2002) 10 SCC 2839 2025 INSC 3210 2025 SCC OnLine 227611/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025Analysis:19. The NDPS Act is a special statute; however, Section 36-C of the NDPS Act applies the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Special Court proceedings, save as otherwise provided in the Act. Section 51 of the NDPS Act applies the Code to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures, to the extent not inconsistent with the NDPS Act.20. Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 497 BNSS, 2023, permits the Court to make appropriate orders for custody and disposal of property pending trial. Section 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 503 BNSS, 2023, empowers the Court, upon a police report of seizure, to decide entitlement to possession and order delivery or other suitable directions.21. Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, provides that a conveyance used for transporting narcotic drugs shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge / connivance and that due precautions were taken. Section 63 of the NDPS Act sets out the procedure for confiscation, mandating a judicial decision by the Court 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025after notice and hearing to the person claiming any right over the property. 22. Thus, the NDPS Act deals with the substantive liability of property to confiscation and the procedure for such confiscation, while the Code / BNSS continues to regulate interim custody and preservation of property pending final adjudication, unless there is a direct inconsistency. No provision in NDPS expressly forbids interim release of vehicles; instead, it protects owners with Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which presuppose a judicial forum.23. The prosecution placed emphasis on the fact that the vehicle has been produced before the Drug Disposal Committee. In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the Drug Disposal Committees and rules under NDPS concerning disposal of seized property are administrative and subordinate mechanisms. They cannot override or curtail the jurisdiction of criminal Courts under Sections 451 / 457 Cr.P.C., 1973 (497 / 503 BNSS) to pass orders on interim custody of seized vehicles. Nor can they override the statutory safeguards under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, which reserve 11 2025 SCC OnLine 227613/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025the final say on confiscation to the Court.24. Therefore, the mere production of the vehicle before a Drug Disposal Committee on a given date does not disable the Special Court or this Court from ordering interim custody to a rightful claimant, especially where confiscation has not yet been judicially ordered. Any action contemplated by the Disposal Committee must, necessarily, bow to subsequent judicial orders.25. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stressed that the vehicles seized in connection with offences should not be allowed to remain in police custody for long, as they deteriorate rapidly. The Courts should promptly release such vehicles to the owner on superdari, taking photographs and recording identifying features, so that their evidentiary value is preserved without physical decay.26. In Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam13, the Hon'ble Supreme 12 (2002) 10 SCC 28313 2025 INSC 3214/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025Court examined different scenarios involving seizure from conveyances and underscored that, where a person is a bona fide owner or claimant, the normal rule is to favour interim release of the vehicle, subject to safeguarding the prosecution’s interest through bonds and undertakings. It emphasised that criminal process must be practical and balanced, and that the law should not countenance needless economic destruction of valuable property.27. Although in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court often considered situations where the claimant was not an accused, the underlying principle that vehicles should not rot in yards where conditions can be imposed to secure their production applies broadly, and suggests that a categorical “no release if accused” policy is not consistent with the spirit of the law.28. In the present case, the vehicle was originally registered in the name of the 1st petitioner’s late wife Nithiya; the petitioner and his minor children are her legal heirs and thus rightful claimants. For practical purposes, the petitioner, as father and natural guardian, is the appropriate person to seek interim custody. The vehicle is a Maruti 14 2025 INSC 3215/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025Suzuki Dzire, used for personal and domestic purposes. It has been in police custody since December 2024, exposed to sun, rain, and natural elements, inevitably undergoing natural decay and depreciation.29. The prosecution alleges that the 1st petitioner (as Accused No.1) was selling ganja using the vehicle. This is a serious allegation and will have to be adjudicated during trial. As of now, there is no final conviction or order of confiscation. The vehicle has been produced before the Drug Disposal Committee; however, as per Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu15, this does not preclude judicial orders regarding interim custody. The apprehension that the petitioner may not produce the vehicle in future can be effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions, including: a substantial bond with solvent sureties; detailed documentation (photographs, engine / chassis numbers, etc.); prohibition on sale, transfer, or alteration of the vehicle; and an undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required and to abide by any final confiscation order.30. On the other side of the scale, refusal to release the vehicle ensures that, even if the 1st petitioner or his children later succeed in 15 2025 SCC OnLine 227616/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025establishing rights or lack of knowledge under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, the asset may have by then lost much of its value due to prolonged disuse and exposure. 31. In this balance, and guided by the approach in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat16, Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam17 and Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu18, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge erred in treating forwarding to the Drug Disposal Committee and apprehension of non-production as reasons for blanket refusal, instead of exploring whether conditional release could adequately safeguard the prosecution’s interest.32. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1358 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, is set aside.33. The respondent police are directed to release the Maruti 16 (2002) 10 SCC 28317 2025 INSC 3218 2025 SCC OnLine 227617/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025Suzuki Dzire car bearing Registration No. TN-14-U-1924 to the petitioner on interim custody, subject to the following conditions: (a)the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as non-refundable deposit for the said vehicle to the credit of the Siddha Clinic, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (A/c No.6865578213, Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court);(b)the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Court for NDPS act cases, Madurai;(c) the petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle before the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS act cases, Madurai; (d) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle; (e)the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the vehicle;18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025(f)the petitioner shall produce the vehicle on every day before the learned Trial Court.34. It is made clear that this order pertains only to the question of interim custody of the vehicle, and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution in Crime No.438 of 2024 or on the ultimate question of confiscation under the NDPS Act, which shall be independently decided by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence.35. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision case is allowed. 27.11.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : YesSmlTo19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 20251.The Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Checkanurani Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J., Sml CRL RC(MD)No.1093 of 2025 27.11.202521/21