Madras High Court
Balakrishnan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 3 December, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1395 of 2025
Balakrishnan,
S/o.Manivannan, ..Petitioner
Vs.
State of TamilNadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Karimedu Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No.431/2025) ..Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of
BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the order dt. 30.09.2025
made in Crl.M.P. No. 3784 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Principal
Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set aside the same and
direct the respondent herein to grant the interim custody for the vehicle,
viz., Yamaha R15 Two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-63-BW-8537,
which has been seized by the respondent herein in Cr.No.431 of 2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raghul Priyan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanidhi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
order made in Crl.M.P.No.3784 of 2025 dated 30.09.2025 on the file of the
Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, whereby, petitioner's
request for interim custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-
BW-8537 Yamaha R.15 in Cr.No.431 of 2025 on the file of Karimedu Police
Station, Madurai was rejected.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned
order places reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Nahoorhani
vs State in Crl.RC(MD).No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023, above Judgment
has been overruled by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Denash Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC)
1032. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle
and produced the Registration Certificate in support thereof. Registration
Certificate was perused by Mr.Karunanidhi, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent and would confirm that petitioner is the lawful
owner of the subject vehicle.
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit
that on 31.08.2025, at about 07.00 p.m., petitioner parked the vehicle near
Manish Theatre and following morning i.e., on 01.09.2025 at about
06.00 a.m., he noticed that the vehicle was missing/stolen. Immediately,
petitioner lodged a complaint on the same day, i.e., 01.09.2025 before the
Singanallur Police Station along with CCTV footage.
4. Thereafter, it was found that the above vehicle was involved in a
illegal transportation of 1.200Kgs of Ganja. He further submits that the
offence was committed after the vehicle was stolen and complaint lodged by
petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has not been arraigned as
accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence or offender.
5. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to note that the
impugned order rejecting the prayer of petitioner to release the vehicle, as
observed supra, was rejected by relying upon 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
3/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
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.
6. 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;
4/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
(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.
7. Divergent views expressed by different High Courts has now been
resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Denash Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1032, wherein, the decision in
Nahoorhani's case relied upon by this Court while disposing of Crl.R.C.
(MD).No.646 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.12.2024 was overruled. The
judgment of this Court in Nahoorhani's case was considered and views
expressed therein were recorded at Paragraph 8 as under:
“8. The High Court held that pursuant to introduction
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure,
Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the Drug
Disposal Committee alone had the authority and jurisdiction
5/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
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.”
7.1 Appellant therein relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Biswajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241, wherein, it
was held as under:
“Broadly speaking there are four scenarios:
33. Though seizure of drugs/substances from conveyances
can take place in a number of situations, yet broadly speaking
there are four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized
from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the
person from whom the possession of contraband
drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is
recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like
driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle
6/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered
from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is
seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without
consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police
that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle
with the owner's knowledge and connivance. In the first two
scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would
necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth
scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be
arrayed as an accused.
34. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to
be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case.
Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle
may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is
discharged by the accused owner. However, in the third and
fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the
charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle
should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject
to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay
the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of
the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle
needs to be confiscated.
7/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
35. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion
should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be
open to the trial courts to take a different view, if the facts of the
case so warrant.
Supreme Court in similar facts in Sainaba v. State of
Kerala [Sainaba v. State of Kerala, (2024) 13 SCC 382 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1784] has released the vehicle
36. In the present case, this Court finds that after
conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the
Court of Special Judge, NDPS Karbi Anglong. In the said
charge-sheet, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver has
been arrayed as an accused. Only a third-party occupant has
been arrayed as an accused. The police after investigation has
not found that the appellant i.e. the owner of the vehicle, has
allowed his vehicle to transport contraband drugs/substances
with his knowledge or connivance or that he or his agent had not
taken all reasonable precautions against such use.
Consequently, the conveyance is entitled to be released on
superdari.
37. In fact, the Supreme Court in similar facts
in Sainaba v. State of Kerala [Sainaba v. State of Kerala, (2024)
13 SCC 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1784] , has held as under :
(SCC paras 6-9)
8/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
“6. The appellant has urged inter alia that as per Section
36-C read with Section 51 of the NDPS Act, Criminal Procedure
Code would be applicable for proceedings by a Special Court
under NDPS Act and Section 451 has an inbuilt provision to
impose any specific condition on the appellant while releasing
the vehicle. The appellant is undoubtedly the registered owner of
the vehicle but had not participated in the offence as alleged by
the prosecution nor had knowledge of the alleged transaction.
7. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of
this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat [Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002)
10 SCC 283 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943] opining that it is no use to
keep such seized vehicles at police station for a long period and
it is open to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking a bond and a guarantee as well as
security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of
time.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for parties and in the
conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the
legal provisions referred aforesaid, we are of the view that this is
an appropriate case for release of the vehicle on terms and
conditions to be determined by the Special Court.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to
bear their own costs.”
9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
If the vehicle in the present case is kept in the custody of police
till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose
38. This Court is also of the view that if the vehicle in the
present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the
trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial
notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open.
Consequently, if the vehicle is not released during the trial, it
will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its
value will only reduce.
Conclusion
40. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed
with directions to the trial court to release the vehicle in
question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and
still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all
information/documents necessary for identification of the
vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the investigating officer,
owner of the vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further,
the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the
vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an
undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicle
within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the
vehicle (determined according to income tax law on the date of
its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court.”
10/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
8. It was urged before the Supreme Court in Denash's case that the
judgment of the Apex Court was per incuriam/sub silentio inasmuch as the
2022 Rules was not noticed. The same was however rejected by finding that
the 2022 Rules while laying down the procedure for initiation and disposal
of seized vehicles is silent on the rights of persons whose property is
affected by such disposal. It was held that the above omission in the rule
assumes significance particularly in cases where the seized property is not a
contraband per se but a conveyance or container of a third party having no
connection with the seized contraband. The Apex Court thereafter
proceeded to consider Section 60 and 63 of NDPS Act, which form the
statutory framework governing confiscation and rights of claimants and held
as under:
“19. Section 60 deals with the liability of illicit drugs,
substances, articles, and conveyances to confiscation. Sub-
section (3) specifically provides that any animal or conveyance
used in carrying a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall
be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves that such use
occurred without his knowledge or connivance, and that he,
his agent (if any), and the person-in-charge had taken all
reasonable precautions against such use. In other words, where
11/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
the owner is able to demonstrate that the conveyance was used
in violation of the NDPS Act without his knowledge or
connivance and that due diligence was exercised, the vehicle
cannot be confiscated merely because it was used in the
commission of an offence under the said Act. However, the Rules
of 2022 (supra) do not provide any such liberty to the owner nor
do they empower the Committee to release a vehicle/conveyance
seized under the Act.
20. Section 63 sets out the procedural mechanism to be
followed by the Special Court before passing any order relating
to seized property. It mandates that no final order of
confiscation of the conveyance can be passed without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the person claiming ownership and
without considering the evidence adduced in support of such
claim. Importantly, the statute expressly vests this adjudicatory
power in the Special Court, thereby excluding any
administrative or executive authority, such as the Drug Disposal
Committee from unilaterally determining the fate of a seized
vehicle where ownership is claimed and fortified by a lawful
defence in terms of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.
21. Thus, a conjoint and holistic reading of Sections 60(3)
and 63, makes it abundantly clear that the power to determine
whether or not a seized conveyance is liable to confiscation
vests in the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and
12/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
not in any administrative or executive authority such as the
Drug Disposal Committee. The statute stipulates that where an
owner proves absence of knowledge or connivance, the Special
Court is dutybound to hear such claim before deciding the fate
of the seized vehicle including confiscation.
22. The legislative scheme thus contemplates that
confiscation, being a measure resulting in deprivation of
property, must conform to the basic tenets of natural justice and
must be preceded with a prior hearing which would ensure that
an innocent owner or a bona fide claimant, whose vehicle or
container might have been misused without his knowledge or
connivance, is not subjected to undue hardship and unjust
deprivation of his property.
23. Let us take two examples:
(a) The vehicle owned by one ‘X’ is stolen and thereafter,
the thief uses the said conveyance to transport narcotic or
psychotropic drug. In such a situation, would it be justified in
leaving the innocent owner to undergo the ordeal of moving the
Drug Disposal Committee after waiting for the arrival of the
chemical examiner’s report, before the vehicle can be released?
(b) Where a bona fide transporter, assigns his transport
vehicle to a driver and the said driver, in the process of carrying
the consigned goods, collects some narcotic material on the way
and is apprehended. In such a situation, would it be justified to
13/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
leave the owner of transport vehicle to await the chemical
examiner’s report and then approach the Drug Disposal
Committee for release of the vehicle?
24. Our answer is in the negative. This can never be the
intent of the statute and the interpretation to this effect would
defeat the very purpose behind Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act
read with Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503
of BNSS].
25. This position has been recently clarified by this Court
in Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was
observed as follows:
“It is settled law that the seized vehicles can be
confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial
when the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged.
Further, even where the Court is of the view that the vehicle is
liable for confiscation, it must give an opportunity of hearing to
the person who may claim any right to the seized vehicle before
passing an order of confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is
not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can
prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without
the owner’s knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all
reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by
the accused person.”
14/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision
makes it abundantly clear that confiscation or otherwise of a
conveyance is to be determined finally, only upon conclusion of
the trial, and until such adjudication, the ownership rights of the
owner, who prima facie establishes that he is unconnected with
the seized contraband, from claiming the seized vehicle cannot
be extinguished. It further underscores that the power of
confiscation is coupled with a duty to observe procedural
fairness and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to an innocent
owner who had neither knowledge nor willfully participated or
connived to commit the offence under the NDPS Act.
27. On the contrary, the Rules of 2022 restrict the mode of
disposal of a seized conveyance to “tender or auction”, as may
be determined by the Drug Disposal Committee. However, this
restrictive procedural framework must necessarily be read in
harmony with the parent statute. The Rules, being subordinate
legislation, cannot override or curtail the substantive rights and
procedural safeguards envisaged under the parent legislation
that is the NDPS Act. In Bishwajit Dey (supra), this Court
observed that the provisions of the NDPS Act do not bar the
concerned Court from exercising its discretion, to release the
15/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
vehicle in interim custody. While the Act provides for
confiscation in appropriate cases, it does not preclude the Court
from granting interim release of the vehicle where the
circumstances so warrant. The exercise of such judicial
discretion is to be guided by the facts and circumstances of each
case and should be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the
rights of a bona fide owner at the same time balancing the need
for detention of the vehicle/conveyance in appropriate cases.
28. Moreover, Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act
expressly make the provisions of the CrPC/BNSS applicable to
proceedings before the Special Court, insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act. Consequently,
the powers under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497
and 503 of BNSS] pertaining to disposal of property pending
trial, would certainly apply to proceedings before the Special
Court. In the absence of an express bar under the NDPS Act, the
mere fact that a vehicle may be liable to confiscation under
Section 60 cannot, by itself, operate to deny interim custody to a
bona fide owner.
29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the
Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special
Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for
16/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under
Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS].
The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders
for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as
to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to
operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged
under the said Rules. Any interpretation to the contrary would
lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona
fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an
opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the
statutory scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the
fundamental principles of natural justice.
30. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
interpretation given by the High Court, holding that pursuant to
the promulgation of the Rules of 2022, all other forums,
including the Special Court, are divested of the jurisdiction to
decide the fate of a seized conveyance under the NDPS Act and
that the aggrieved person must necessarily approach the Drug
Disposal Committee, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
31. In the present case, it is manifest that the appellant is
the true owner of the vehicle, having valid documents. The
vehicle was lawfully engaged for transportation of iron sheets
weighing 29,400 MT. The seized drug, i.e., 6 kilograms Ganja
was found in possession of the four accused persons present in
17/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
the vehicle. Neither was the appellant chargesheeted in the
matter nor did the prosecution allege him to be acting in
conspiracy. As a necessary corollary, it can safely be presumed
that the said contraband must have been procured by the drivers
and/or the khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the
appellant.
32. Having regard to the valuable consignment being
transported and the high value of the vehicle, it does not stand
to reason that the appellant, being the owner thereof, would
knowingly jeopardize his business and property by permitting
the transportation of 6 kilograms of Ganja alongside such
valuable cargo.
33. The situation at hand may be examined with reference
to the principles enunciated by this Court in paragraphs 29 and
30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), wherein four scenarios were
delineated concerning the seizure of contraband from a
conveyance, along with the general approach to be adopted by
Courts while considering the question of interim release of such
conveyances. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra),
are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: -
“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from
conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet
broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the drug or
substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner
18/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of
contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the
contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the
owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly,
where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and
contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly,
where the contraband is seized/ recovered from a third-party
occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without
any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and
transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and
connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle
and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In
the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his
agent would not be arrayed as an accused.
30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to
be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case.
Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle
may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is
discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and
fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the
charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle
should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject
to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay
19/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date
of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the
vehicle needs to be confiscated.
31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid discussion
should not be taken as laying down a rigid formula as it will be
open to the trial Courts to take a different view, if the facts of the
case so warrant.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present case
might appear to fall within the second scenario delineated in
Bishwajit Dey (supra), where contraband is recovered from the
owner’s agent (driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however,
the application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a rigid or
mechanical formula. Each case must be examined in light of its
peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present matter, a
holistic consideration of the record reveals that the facts do not
align strictly with the said category for the following reasons: -
i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with valid
documents, and the vehicle was commercially engaged in
transporting a valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron
sheets. It is highly improbable to believe that he would risk both
the costly vehicle and the high value consigned goods and his
business goodwill by knowingly allowing narcotics to be
20/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
transported along with the cargo.
ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of Ganja
was recovered from the four chargesheeted accused persons.
iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as an
accused and the chargesheet contains no material suggesting
that the appellant had knowledge of or connived in the offence.
iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said
contraband must have been procured by the drivers and/or the
khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the appellant.
35. In view of the above, while the present case may
technically correspond to the second scenario as enumerated in
paragraph 29 of Bishwajit Dey (supra), the peculiar factual
matrix warrants a more pragmatic approach. It would,
therefore, be expedient in the interest of justice to grant interim
custody of the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall
circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and absence of any
involvement in the drugs being carried in the vehicle.
36. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the
appeal deserves to succeed. The impugned judgment dated 20th
December, 2024 passed by the High Court is accordingly set
aside. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 52 Q 0315 shall
be released on supurdagi to the appellant on such terms and
conditions, which the Special Court may impose.”
21/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
It is thus made clear that the impugned order relying upon the order of this
Court in Nahoorhani's case, which is no longer good law, cannot be
sustained.
9. Furthermore, it is submitted that the subject vehicle was stolen on
31.08.2025 and complaint was lodged on 01.09.2025 while the alleged
offence is said to have occurred on 09.09.2025, a week after the vehicle was
stolen. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs.
Madhukar Rao reported in 2008 (14) SCC 624, wherein, at paragraph
No.16, it was held that if the vehicle owner is in a position to show that it
was used for committing the offence only after it was stolen from his
possession, it could be the situation, where it would warrant the release of
the vehicle/property in favour of the owner. The relevant portion of the said
Judgment is extracted hereunder :
“16. We are unable to accept the submissions. To contend
that the use of a vehicle in the commission of an offence under
the Act, without anything else would bar its interim release
appears to us to be quite unreasonable. There may be a case
22/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
where a vehicle was undeniably used for commission of an
offence under the Act but the vehicle's owner is in a position to
show that it was used for committing the offence only after it
was stolen from his possession. In that situation, we are unable
to see why the vehicle should not be released in the owner's
favour during the pendency of the trial.”
10. Following the above decision of the Apex Court, this Court finds
that the vehicle shall be released subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like
sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act
Cases, Madurai.
(ii)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 and shall produce the same as and
when required by the respondents and also the trial Court, failing which the
respondents/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.
23/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
(iii)The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the
disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned.
(iv) The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be
conducted by the respondent.
(v) The petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. Book before the
Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
(vi) Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any purpose in the
future may be filed before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act
Cases, Madurai, who may consider the same on merits, though this order
has been passed by the High Court.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.09.2025
passed in Crl.M.P.No.3784 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Special
Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai is set aside. Accordingly, this
Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
03.12.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
gvn/Lm
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Karimedu Police Station, Madurai.
2. The Principal Special Court for
EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
gvn/Lm Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1395 of 2025 03.12.2025 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/12/2025 02:35:41 pm )