The Supreme Court has recently held that the power to confiscate a vehicle seized in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) vests exclusively in the court trying the offence under Section 63 of the Act. It also ruled that a Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) constituted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, cannot independently proceed to dispose of a seized conveyance without orders from the court.

"Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence," the Court held.

Applying this, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed release of a lorry to its owner, whose vehicle had remained in custody even after the accused persons were acquitted in the NDPS case.

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 of safe custody of the contraband, the prosecution's inability to explain how the lorry was permitted to ply during the 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 after the appeal period had expired, his plea was rejected. The Madras High Court affirmed the rejection under Section 52A, the Standing Orders, and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, especially since the Investigating Officer had separately moved the trial court to refer the vehicle to the DDC.

The Madras High Court's decision relied on its own earlier ruling in Nahoorkani v. State, which had held that proceedings under Section 63 of the NDPS Act must be undertaken during the trial and not afterward, that the state's right to confiscate the conveyances operates independent of the trial's outcome, and that courts lack jurisdiction over conveyances seized under the NDPS Act once this stage has passed.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Countering the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court relied on its 2025 ruling in Biswajit Dey v State of Assam, where it had identified four scenarios of recovery from a vehicle, such as, the owner himself in possession, his agent (driver or cleaner) in possession, the vehicle having been stolen, or a third party found in possession. It also stated that interim custody may not be appropriate in the first two scenarios but could be granted in the latter two. The Court clarified, however, that this distinction applied only to interim custody and not to final release after conclusion of trial.

It further explained that confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act and the criminal trial are separate tracks governed by different standards of proof, and that an acquittal does not automatically translate into release of the vehicle.

Examining Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, the bench noted that the provision requires the court, irrespective of whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged, to decide whether any seized article is liable to confiscation under Section 60, 61, or 62 of the NDPS Act, and to pass an order of confiscation accordingly. It is to be noted that Section 60 renders the conveyance carrying the contraband liable to confiscation, subject to the exception under sub-section (3) where the owner proves the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance.

The Court also examined Rule 16 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which permits disposal of seized conveyances “as soon as may be after their seizure” in the manner determined under Section 52A. Harmonising this rule with the statute, the Court held that while a conveyance can be disposed of under the 2022 Rules, this power cannot be exercised by the DDC independently, since the power of confiscation is vested in the court by Section 63(1). It held that the rules can be applied only with the court's permission, in order to preserve the statutory scheme.

It further 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. The bench further clarified that if no one comes forward to seek custody, the Investigating Officer may move the court to refer the vehicle to the DDC for disposal. However, it can be done only after notice to the owner and an opportunity of being heard, and even then the DDC itself must hear the owner before proceeding to auction, with sale proceeds to be deposited before the jurisdictional court rather than treated as confiscation.

We observe that a conveyance also can be disposed of under the Rules of 2022, but the power to confiscate being with the Court, it would not be proper for the DDC to independently proceed against the vehicle and dispose of that by sale or otherwise in auction, pending the criminal proceedings, without proper orders from the Court. As has been held in Biswajit Dey, there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act that the Court cannot invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Hence to preserve the statutory power, as conferred by Section 63(1) on the Court, trying the offence under the NDPS Act and to harmonize the Rules with the statute, it has to be held that the rules can be made applicable only with the permission of the Court

With respect to the present case, the Court found no error in the trial court's original directions to release the vehicle. It noted that the grounds of acquittal were serious enough to put the prosecution's case in real peril, and pointed to a host of additional inconsistencies in the investigation. It, therefore, observed that these circumstances, taken together with the grounds of acquittal, render the very interception “suspect”.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the trial court had rightly exercised its power under Section 63(1) to order release of the vehicle to its owner, and that the subsequent rejection of the appellant's application was unwarranted. It also stated that the court, at that stage, needed only to verify the owner's credentials rather than deny a release that had already been ordered.

In the light of above, the Supreme Court set aside both the trial court's order rejecting release and the judgment of the Madras High Court upholding it. It also 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