Madras High Court flags trial courts' handling of vehicles seized in drug cases; says follow NDPS Act

The Madras High Court on July 9 expressed concern over systemic lapses in handling seized vehicles under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985 and criticised the continued use of outdated procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by trial courts [R Manimaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu].

Justice B Pugalendhi held that the disposal of seized vehicles must follow the framework under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Disposal Rules and not be routed through interim custody applications under Sections 451 or 452 CrPC.

The Court directed the Tamil Nadu Home Department and the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue appropriate circulars to ensure compliance.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging an order of a trial court that had refused to release a vehicle seized in a 2021 NDPS case, despite the accused being acquitted in January 2023.

It said the continued failure to initiate proper disposal proceedings had led to serious logistical, evidentiary and administrative risks, including deterioration of public assets, theft and misuse.

“Practice of leaving seized vehicles in custody, unattended for years, continues to persist … Long retention of seized vehicles and materials contributes to court congestion, storage hazards, and pilferage risk … systemic lapses in the disposal of seized conveyances and contraband under the NDPS Act remain a recurring concern. Long-term retention of such properties in godowns or open premises has often led to deterioration, theft, or unauthorised usage,” the judgement noted.

The Court emphasised that the NDPS Act read with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 provides a complete statutory mechanism for disposal.

The Drug Disposal Committee (DDC), the Court said, was the appropriate forum for considering return or destruction of vehicles, not the trial court through CrPC procedures.

“Judicial orders that bypass the NDPS Act and 2022 Rules not only defeat legislative intent but also embolden offenders to reclaim vehicles used in crimes … Claimants must approach the competent authority under the NDPS Act and not seek relief through interim custody applications under CrPC,” the Court said.

The seized vehicle in question had remained in storage since 2021 with no steps initiated either by the investigating officer or the claimant for disposal.

Although the trial court, while acquitting the accused, noted that the vehicle may be released to the “rightful owner” after the appeal period, it did not pass any confiscation order under Section 60 of the NDPS Act.

When the appellant later sought return of the vehicle, the trial court rejected the request citing the State’s intent to appeal even though no such appeal was eventually filed.

The High Court declined to release the vehicle directly to the appellant, citing his belated claim and lack of verified ownership during investigation. Instead, it directed the trial court to expeditiously process the investigating officer’s pending application to refer the vehicle to the Drug Disposal Committee.

The Court further noted that in many cases, no individual claims ownership of seized vehicles because traffickers avoid registering them in their names.

Referring to the recent enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court said that Section 497 of the BNSS now provides a clear and time-bound mechanism for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

“Section 497 BNSS read with Sections 498 to 505 now provides a comprehensive and time-bound mechanism that must supersede older practices under the CrPC. However, trial Courts continue to mechanically invoke Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, disregarding both the NDPS Act and BNSS mandates,” the Court noted.

The Court issued wide-ranging directions mandating that all investigating officers, prosecutors and special NDPS courts in the State adhere strictly to the disposal framework under the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules.

Special courts were also directed to actively monitor Drug Disposal Committee proceedings to ensure prompt and lawful disposal of seized property.

The appellant was represented by advocate M Jegadeesh Pandian.

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor T Senthil Kumar.

[Read Judgment]