Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Monday (October 27) held that when a vehicle owner demonstrates that the conveyance was used for transporting narcotic substances without his knowledge or involvement, interim custody of the vehicle cannot be withheld during the pendency of trial. The Court clarified that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, do not curtail the Special Court’s jurisdiction under the NDPS Act to grant interim release of a seized vehicle where the owner prima facie establishes no link with the contraband. The vehicle was directed to be released on suitable terms and conditions.

The appellant, owner of a transport lorry, approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench that denied him interim custody of his vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The vehicle, lawfully hired for transporting 29,400 metric tonnes of iron sheets from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu, was intercepted by the Neyveli Township Police on 14 July 2024. During the search, officers recovered a total of six kilograms of Ganja concealed beneath the driver’s seat and from the possession of three other occupants. All four were arrested and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes’ Patent Infringement Suit Over Atomberg’s “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court For Consolidated Hearing

The appellant, not named in the charge-sheet, filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to Section 451 CrPC) before the Special Court at Thanjavur seeking interim release of the vehicle on supurdagi. The Special Court dismissed the plea, holding that vehicles seized under the NDPS Act were subject to confiscation and could not be released under CrPC provisions. The High Court upheld this view, observing that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the Drug Disposal Committee alone had jurisdiction to determine disposal of seized conveyances.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025 INSC 32), arguing that interim release of vehicles is permissible where ownership and absence of knowledge of contraband are established. The State contended that the 2022 Rules had altered the position by vesting authority solely in the Drug Disposal Committee. The dispute thus concerned whether the 2022 Rules curtailed the Special Court’s authority under the NDPS Act to order interim custody of seized vehicles.

The Court examined the statutory scheme and observed that “a bare perusal of the rules, particularly the provisions pertaining to disposal of conveyances would make it clear that they are only supplemental to the scheme of disposal contemplated under the NDPS Act.” It further held that “the Rules being subordinate legislation, cannot supersede the provisions of the parent legislation.”

The Bench stated that under Rule 17, “initiation of process for disposal lies exclusively in the domain of the officer in-charge of the police station or any other officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, and such initiation has to be preceded by the receipt of the chemical analysis report.” It noted that “the Rules do not contemplate that any person other than the officer in-charge of the police station… can move an application for disposal” and that “no such application can be entertained before the receipt of the chemical analysis report.”

The Court considered Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act and recorded that “where 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.” It also held procedural safeguards, observing that “no final order of confiscation of the conveyance can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person claiming ownership.”

The judgment stated 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… is not subjected to undue hardship and unjust deprivation of his property.” It rejected the reasoning that an owner must wait for a chemical analysis and approach the Drug Disposal Committee, concluding that “this can never be the intent of the statute.”

Referring to Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal (2025), the Court noted: “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.”

Also Read: Customs House Agent Can Be Held Liable for Employee Misconduct but Must Exercise Due Diligence and Face Proportionate Penalty: Delhi High Court

Finally, the Court clarified that “the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC.” It added that “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.”

It stated that “in wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal deserves to succeed.” Accordingly, the Court held that “the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside.” The Bench directed that “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. The appeal is allowed accordingly” and “pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sreegesh M.k, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. N Narasimha Murthy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Aashigaa Pravaagini, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Srivastava, Adv.

Case Title: Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1258
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8698 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta