Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Disposal Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act; Says Notice To Owner Mandatory

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran ruled so while examining the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which vests the power of confiscation in the court, and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules 2022, which permit disposal of seized conveyances through the DDC.

The petitioner's lorry, along with 66 kg of ganja allegedly recovered from it, was seized after interception. This led to prosecution of four persons under the NDPS Act. Later all four of them were acquitted by the Additional District and Sessions Court, (EC and NDPS cases, Pudukottai), stating discrepancies in the arrest memo, absence of any registered recording safe custody of the contraband, the prosecution's inability to explain how the lorry was permitted to ply during pandemic, and delay in sending samples to the court and the laboratory. While acquitting the accused, it had also directed release of the lorry to its owner once the appeal period lapsed.

However, when the petitioner approached the trial court once the appeal period was over, his plea was rejected. The Madras High Court affirmed the rejection under Section 52A, the Standing Orders, and the 2022 Rules, especially since the Investigating Officer had separately moved the trial court to refer the vehicle to the DDC. Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

While directing the release of a lorry to its owner, the Supreme Court also observed that a vehicle kept in police or court custody during the pendency of trial may deteriorate and become unusable, and reaffirmed that Sections 451 or 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, now Section 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be invoked even in NDPS cases for interim custody. In such circumstances, the Investigating Officer may move the trial court seeking a reference of the vehicle to the DDC for disposal. However, the bench made it clear that it should not be treated as a mere formality bypassing judicial oversight.

"If none appears to seek custody of the vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O may move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for interim custody, to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle and afford an opportunity of hearing before such reference is made. Even if the reference is made after giving an opportunity for hearing, the DDC also has to hear the owner before the asset, in the form of a vehicle, is sold in public auction."

The bench also clarified that disposal of a vehicle by the DDC through the public auction under this route does not amount to confiscation. “On such sale being carried out, the amount received shall be deposited before the Jurisdictional Court, since the procedure delineated for disposal does not include confiscation. Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence,” the bench ruled.

All in all, the Court's directions preserve the owner's right to be heard while also ensuring that any money realised from the sale remains within the custody and control of the court until the question of confiscation is finally decided in accordance with Section 63 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court, thus, directed that the lorry be released to the appellant and that if the vehicle had already been transmitted to the DDC, it should be released forthwith by the DDC to the appellant.

Case: R Manimaran v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Appearance:

For Petitioner: A Velan, Adv

For Respondent: S Gowthaman, Adv

Click here to read the judgment