DATE: 27/10/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice
Sandeep Mehta
FACTS:
The appellant, the lawful owner of a lorry
bearing registration number TN 52 Q 0315 (Ashok Leyland, 14-wheeler), had hired
his vehicle for transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets from M/s S.S. Steel and
Power, Chhattisgarh, to Ashok Steels, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was
driven by four individuals, Kannan @
Venkatesan (Accused No. 1), Deva (Accused No. 2), Senthamalivalavan (Accused
No. 3), and Tamil Selvan (Accused No. 4). During transit on 14th July 2024, the
Neyveli Township Police intercepted the vehicle and discovered 1.5 kilograms of
ganja concealed beneath the driver’s seat and an additional 1.5 kilograms each
from the possession of the other three accused, totalling 6 kilograms.
Consequently, FIR No. 220 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections
8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A charge sheet was filed against the four
accused, while the appellant, being the vehicle owner, was not named as an
accused under Section 173(2) CrPC [Section 193(3) BNSS].
Following the seizure, the appellant sought
interim custody (supurdagi) of his vehicle by filing Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 5495 of 2024 under Section 497 BNSS [Section 451 CrPC] before
the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur. The Special
Court dismissed the application on 9th September 2024, holding that a vehicle
seized under the NDPS Act was not eligible for interim release since it was
liable to confiscation under Section 63 of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
a criminal revision petition (MD) No. 1021 of 2024 before the Madurai Bench of
the Madras High Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision. The High Court
reasoned that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure,
Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, only the Drug Disposal Committee
had jurisdiction over the disposal of seized property, including vehicles. It
further presumed that the Committee also had authority to consider requests for
interim release. Dissatisfied with this interpretation, the appellant
approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.
ISSUES:
The central issue before the Supreme Court
was whether, after the introduction of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the
jurisdiction to grant interim custody (supurdagi) of a seized vehicle under the
NDPS Act rested exclusively with the Drug Disposal Committee or whether the
Special Court retained concurrent authority under Sections 451 and 457 of the
CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS]. A related issue was whether the
appellant, being the lawful owner of the vehicle and not an accused in the
case, was entitled to interim release of his vehicle that had been misused by
drivers without his knowledge or consent.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High
Court’s decision and allowed the appeal, holding that the 2022 Rules could not
divest Special Courts of their statutory power to grant interim custody of
seized conveyances. It directed that the appellant’s vehicle, bearing
registration number TN 52 Q 0315, be released to him on supurdagi upon terms
and conditions determined by the Special Court. The Court clarified that the
Drug Disposal Committee’s powers under the 2022 Rules operate in addition to,
and not in substitution of, the Court’s authority under the NDPS Act and the
BNSS.
The Court reasoned that confiscation of
property under the NDPS Act, being a measure that deprives ownership, must
adhere to the principles of natural justice and cannot occur without affording
the owner a prior opportunity of hearing. It emphasized that an innocent or
bona fide owner should not be subjected to undue hardship or deprived of
property merely because his vehicle was misused by others without his knowledge
or connivance. The Court illustrated this by providing examples such as where a
stolen vehicle or a hired transport vehicle is misused to carry narcotics, stating
that it would be unjust to compel such owners to await the chemical examiner’s
report and then approach the Drug Disposal Committee for release. Such an
interpretation, the Court held, would defeat the intent of Section 60(3) of the
NDPS Act and the corresponding provisions under the BNSS.
Further, the Court held that the 2022 Rules
are subordinate legislation and must be read harmoniously with the parent
statute. The Rules, it stated, only prescribe procedures for disposal of seized
property and cannot override substantive rights or curtail judicial powers
vested in the Special Court. Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act explicitly
make the procedural provisions of the CrPC (now BNSS) applicable to proceedings
under the Act, except where inconsistent. Hence, in the absence of any express
statutory bar, Special Courts continue to have jurisdiction to grant interim
release of seized vehicles. Applying these principles, the Court found that the
appellant was a bona fide owner whose vehicle had been lawfully engaged for
transport of iron sheets and who had no knowledge or role in the carriage of
ganja by the accused drivers. In such circumstances, denial of interim custody
would amount to punishing an innocent owner for the misconduct of others, a
result contrary to fairness, equity, and the objectives of the NDPS Act.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case
reaffirmed the enduring authority of Special Courts to grant interim custody of
seized vehicles under the NDPS Act, even after the enactment of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal)
Rules, 2022. By setting aside the Madras High Court’s view that the Drug
Disposal Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over the disposal of seized
property, the Court restored the balance between administrative and judicial
powers. It clarified that the Rules of 2022, being subordinate legislation,
could not override or restrict the powers conferred on criminal courts under
Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS]. The Court
thus reinforced that judicial discretion in matters of interim release remains
intact unless expressly barred by statute. This interpretation not only
preserved procedural fairness but also ensured that courts retain control over
property seized during criminal investigations, preventing excessive
bureaucratic delay or administrative arbitrariness.
The ruling also emphasized the principle
that innocent ownership must be protected from punitive consequences arising
from the misuse of property by third parties. By acknowledging that the
appellant had lawfully engaged his lorry for commercial transport and had no
knowledge of the narcotics concealed by the drivers, the Court underscored the
importance of fairness and proportionality in the application of the NDPS Act.
It observed that depriving a bona fide owner of his vehicle until the
conclusion of trial or completion of administrative processes would amount to
unjust punishment and economic hardship. Furthermore, the Court’s reasoning
harmonized statutory interpretation with the objectives of the NDPS Act, noting
that while strict control over narcotics is essential, the law should not
penalize individuals lacking culpability. In essence, the judgment reinforces
judicial oversight, upholds natural justice, and provides crucial protection to
innocent property owners caught in NDPS-related prosecutions.
info@adhwaitha.com