Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
— Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1), 60(3), 63 — Interim custody of conveyance seized — Release of vehicle — Scope of jurisdiction of Special Court vis-à-vis Drug Disposal Committee — NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 — Subordinate legislation cannot override parent statute — Rules of 2022 supplement but do not supplant S. 60(3) and S. 63 of NDPS Act — Special Court retains power and jurisdiction under Ss. 451 & 457 CrPC [Ss. 497 & 503 BNSS] to order interim release pending trial — Confiscation a judicial function — Administrative/executive body (DDC) cannot decide confiscation where ownership and absence of knowledge/connivance is asserted — Principles of natural justice.
Held, Rules of 2022 do not divest the Special Court of jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody/release of a conveyance seized under NDPS Act. Disposal mechanism under Rules is directory and supplemental, not overriding substantive rights of owner under Ss. 60(3) & 63. Confiscation must follow trial and hearing of claimant. Court must safeguard rights of a bona fide owner who establishes lack of knowledge/connivance. Interpretation suggested by High Court leads to anomalous and unjust consequences. (Paras 11-24, 27-30)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 451 & 457
(BNSS — Ss. 497 & 503)
— Applicability before NDPS Special Court — Interim release of vehicle — No statutory bar — Judicial discretion must consider status of owner and allegations.
Sections 36-C and 51 NDPS Act expressly apply CrPC/BNSS provisions unless inconsistent. Mere liability to confiscation under S. 60 cannot operate as bar to interim custody of a conveyance belonging to a bona fide owner. (Paras 28-29)
Precedents — Followed and Explained
Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 32 — ratio applied: four-scenario framework for seized vehicles; in scenario where owner not implicated, interim release is normal rule subject to bond. Court clarifies scenario analysis is not rigid formula — facts here warrant release despite technical fit in second scenario. (Paras 33-35)
Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West Bengal, Crl. A. No. 1305 of 2025 — followed: confiscation only at conclusion of trial; prior opportunity of hearing mandatory; owner’s innocence protects property rights. (Para 25-26)
Result — Appeal Allowed
Impugned High Court judgment set aside. Vehicle (TN 52 Q 0315) to be released to appellant on supurdagi, on conditions imposed by Special Court. (Paras 36-37)2025 INSC 1258
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025)
DENASH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein has approached this Court
through this appeal by special leave for assailing the
judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court1 in Criminal Revision Case (MD)
No.1021 of 2024, whereby the prayer made by the
appellant for interim custody of his lorry bearing
1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.
2
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
registration no. TN 52 Q 0315 (Ashok Leyland, 14
wheeler)2, was rejected.
Brief Facts: -
4. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle in
question, which was lawfully hired for transporting
29,400 MT of iron sheets from M/s S.S. Steel and
Power, Chhattisgarh to Ashok Steels, Ranipet, Tamil
Nadu. For this purpose, the vehicle had been
assigned to driver Kannan @ Venkatesan (accused
No. 1), Deva (accused No. 2), Senthamalivalavan
(accused No. 3), and Tamil Selvan (accused No. 4).
During the course of transit, on 14th July, 2024, the
officers of Police Station Neyveli Township,
intercepted and searched the vehicle, whereupon 1.5
kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath the
driver Kannan’s (accused No. 1) seat, and an
additional 1.5 kilograms each was recovered from the
personal possession of the other three accused,
thereby bringing the total quantity of seized Ganja to
6 kilograms. All four accused persons present in the
vehicle were arrested. Pursuant to the seizure, First
Information Report No. 220 of 2024 was registered at
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as “the vehicle”.
3
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
P.S. Neyveli Township, District Cuddalore, for
offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B),
25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 19853. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the
aforesaid four accused for the said offences. It is
important to note that the appellant was not
arraigned as an accused in the report filed under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure4
[Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita5].
5. Being aggrieved by the continued seizure of his
valuable transport vehicle, the appellant moved an
application under Section 497 BNSS [Section 451
CrPC], being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
5495 of 2024, before Additional District
Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under
Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur6, seeking
interim release of the seized vehicle on supurdagi
pending conclusion of trial.
3 For short “NDPS Act”.
4 For short “CrPC”.
5 For short “BNSS”.
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Special Court”.
4
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
6. The Special Court, vide order dated 9th
September, 2024 dismissed the aforesaid application
filed by the appellant on the ground that the vehicle
seized under the provisions of the NDPS Act was not
amenable to release on interim custody by invoking
the provisions under Sections 451 and 452 of CrPC
[Sections 497 and 498 BNSS], as the same was liable
to confiscation under Section 63 of the NDPS Act.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the
High Court for assailing the order of the Special Court
by filing Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1021 of
2024 which came to be rejected by the impugned
judgment.
8. The High Court held that pursuant to
introduction of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and
Disposal) Rules, 20227, the Drug Disposal Committee
alone had the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the disposal of the property which included
seized drugs as well as the conveyances. The High
Court further held that since the Rules of 2022 vested
exclusive jurisdiction with the Drug Disposal
7 For short “Rules of 2022”.
5
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
Committee, it could be presumed that the Committee
was empowered to consider requests for interim
release of a seized conveyance as well. Accordingly,
the revision preferred by the appellant was dismissed
upon which, the appellant is before us by way of the
instant appeal with special leave.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
placed reliance on a recent decision in Bishwajit Dey
v. State of Assam8 wherein this Court examined
various facets and scenarios in which a prayer for
interim release of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act
could be entertained and adjudicated. He urged that
the controversy involved in the present case is
squarely covered by the ratio of the above decision
and thus, the appellant is entitled to release of his
seized vehicle.
10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
State, supported the impugned judgment and urged
that the judgment in Bishwajit Dey (supra), did not
consider the import of the Rules of 2022 and thus,
the ratio thereof must be declared to be per
incuriam/sub silentio insofar as the aspect of release
8 2025 INSC 32.
6
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act is concerned.
It was, therefore, contended that the appeal should
be dismissed, leaving it open for the appellant to take
recourse to the appropriate remedy for seeking
interim release of the vehicle.
Findings and Conclusion: -
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment and the material
placed on record. We have also carefully perused the
Rules of 2022.
12. Relevant provisions of the Rules of 2022 are
quoted hereinbelow: -
“17. Officers who shall initiate action for
disposal. - Any officer in-charge of a police
station or any officer empowered under section
53 of the Act shall initiate action for disposal of
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances under
section 52A of the Act after the receipt of
chemical analysis report.
20. Functions of the Drug Disposal Committee.
- The functions of the Drug Disposal Committee
shall be to, -
(a) meet as frequently as possible and
necessary;
(b) conduct a detailed review of seized items
pending disposal;
7
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(c) order disposal of seized items, and
(d) advise the respective investigation
officers or supervisory officers on the steps
to be initiated for expeditious disposal.
21. Procedure to be followed by the Drug
Disposal Committee with regard to disposal of
seized materials. –
(1) The officer-in-charge of the godown shall
prepare a list of all the seized materials that
have been certified under section 52A of the
Act and submit it to the Chairman of the
concerned Drug Disposal Committee.
(2) After examining the list referred to in
sub-rule (1) and satisfying that the
requirements of section 52A of the Act have
been fully complied with, the Members of
the concerned Drug Disposal Committee
shall endorse necessary certificates to this
effect and thereafter that Committee shall
physically examine and verify the weight
and other details of each of the seized
materials with reference to the seizure
report, report of chemical analysis and any
other documents, and record its findings in
each case.
(3) In case of conveyance, the committee
shall verify the engine number, chassis
number and other details mentioned in
panchnama and certify the inventory
thereof.
22. Power of Drug Disposal Committee for
disposal of seized material. - The Drug Disposal
Committee can order disposal of seized
materials up to the quantity or value indicated
in the following Table, namely: -
8
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
S. No. Name of Item Quantity per
consignment
1. Heroin 5 Kilogram
2. Hashish (Charas) 100 Kilogram
3. Hashish Oil 20 Kilogram
4. Ganja 1000 Kilogram
5. Cocaine 2 Kilograms
6. Mandrax 3000 Kilogram
7. Poppy Straw Up to 10 Metric
Tonne
8. Other narcotic
drugs,
psychotropic
substances, or
controlled
substances
Up to a quantity of
500 Kilogram or 500
Litre
9. Conveyances Up to a value of Rs.
50 Lakhs
23. Mode of disposal. –
(1) Opium, morphine, codeine and thebaine
shall be disposed of by transferring to the
Government Opium and Alkaloid Works under
the Chief Controller of Factories.
(2) In case of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, other than those mentioned in
sub-rule (1), the Chief Controller of Factories
shall be intimated by the fastest means of
communication available, the details of the
seized materials that are ready for disposal.
(3) The Chief Controller of Factories shall
indicate within fifteen days of the date of
receipt of the communication under sub-rule
(2), the quantities of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, if any, that are
9
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
required by him to supply as samples under
rule 67B of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985.
(4) The quantities of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, if any, as required
by the Chief Controller of Factories under subrule (3) shall be transferred to him and the
remaining quantities of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances shall be disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of sub-rules
(5), (6) and (7).
(5) Narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances
and controlled substances having legitimate
medical or industrial use, and conveyances
shall be disposed of in the following
manner;
(a) narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances and controlled substances
which are in the form of formulations
and labelled in accordance with the
provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and rules made
thereunder may be sold, by way of
tender or auction or in such other
manner as may be determined by the
Drug Disposal Committee, after
confirming the composition and
formulation from the licensed
manufacturer mentioned in the label, to
a person fulfilling the requirements of
the said Act and the rules and orders
made thereunder:
Provided that a minimum of 60% of the
shelf life of the seized formulation
remains at the time of such sale;
10
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(b) narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substance and controlled substances
seized in the form of formulations and
without proper labelling shall be
destroyed;
(c) narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances and controlled substances
seized in bulk form may be sold by .way
of tender or auction or in such other
manner as may be determined by the
Drug Disposal Committee, to a person
fulfilling the requirements of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940)
and the Act, and the rules and orders
made thereunder, after confirming the
standards and fitness of the seized
substances for medical purposes from
the appropriate authority under the said
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the
rules made thereunder;
(d) controlled substances having
legitimate industrial use may be sold, by
way of tender or auction or in such other
manner as may he determined by the
Drug Disposal Committee, to a person
fulfilling the requirements of the Act and
the rules and orders made thereunder;
(e) seized conveyances shall be sold
by way of tender or auction as may be
determined by the Drug Disposal
Committee.
(6) Narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances
and controlled substances which have no
legitimate medical or industrial use or such
quantity of seized substance which is not
11
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
found fit for such use or could not be sold shall
he destroyed.
(7) The destruction referred to in clause (b) of
sub-rule (5) and sub-rule (6) shall be by
incineration in incinerators fitted with
appropriate air pollution control devices,
which comply with emission standards and
such incineration may only be done in places
approved by the State Pollution Control Board
or where adequate facilities and security
arrangements exist and in the latter case, in
order to ensure that such incineration may
not be a health hazard or polluting, the
consent of the State Pollution Control Board
or Pollution Control Committee, as the case
may be, shall be obtained, and the destruction
shall be carried out in the presence of the
Members of the Drug Disposal Committee.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. 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. The Rules being subordinate legislation,
cannot supersede the provisions of the parent
legislation, i.e., the NDPS Act.9 It is well settled that
the Rules framed under a statute are intended to
9 See Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1 (para
29).
12
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
carry out the purposes of the Act and cannot travel
beyond or be inconsistent with the parent legislation.
14. As per 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.
15. In other words, the Rules do not contemplate
that any person other than the officer in-charge of the
police station or any other officer empowered under
Section 53 of the NDPS Act, can move an application
for disposal. Furthermore, no such application can
be entertained before the receipt of the chemical
analysis report. The clear intention of the Rule
appears to be that disposal proceedings should not
commence until the seized narcotic drug has been
duly verified through chemical examination, as such
verification forms the very basis of further
proceedings under the Act.
16. Furthermore, Rule 22 provides that the Drug
Disposal Committee “can” direct disposal of the
seized materials including conveyances valued less
than Rupees 50 lakhs. Clearly thus, the provision
13
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
under the said Rule is not mandatory, rather
directory and supplemental to the provisions of
disposal under the Act.
17. While the Rules of 2022 lay down the procedure
for initiation and disposal of seized articles, they are
notably silent on the rights of persons whose property
is affected by such disposal. This omission assumes
particular importance in cases where the seized
property is not a contraband per se but a conveyance
or container belonging to a third party who may have
no connection with the seized contraband. In this
context, it is essential to refer to the substantive and
procedural provisions contained in Sections 60 and
63 of the NDPS Act, which form the statutory
framework governing confiscation and the rights of
claimants.
18. Section 60 and Section 63 are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference: -
60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants,
articles and conveyances to confiscation.—
(1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act
has been committed, the narcotic drug,
psychotropic substance, controlled substance,
opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant,
materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of
which or by means of which such offence has been
committed, shall be liable to confiscation.
14
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or
controlled substances] lawfully produced, imported
inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into
India, transported, manufactured, possessed,
used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition
to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or
controlled substances] which is liable to
confiscation under sub-section (1) and the
receptacles, packages and coverings in which any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or
controlled substances], materials, apparatus or
utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1)
is found, and the other contents, if any, of such
receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to
confiscation.
(3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or
controlled substances], or any article liable to
confiscation under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless
the owner of the animal or conveyance proves
that it was so used without the knowledge or
connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if
any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or
conveyance and that each of them had taken all
reasonable precautions against such use.
63. Procedure in making confiscations. —
(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether
the accused is convicted or acquitted or
discharged, the court shall decide whether any
article or thing seized under this Act is liable to
confiscation under section 60 or section 61 or
section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so
liable, it may order confiscation accordingly.
15
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act
appears to be liable to confiscation under section
60 or section 61 or section 62, but the person who
committed the offence in connection therewith is
not known or cannot be found, the court may
inquire into and decide such liability, and may
order confiscation accordingly:
Provided that no order of confiscation of an
article or thing shall be made until the expiry of
one month from the date of seizure, or without
hearing any person who may claim any right
thereto and the evidence, if any, which he
produces in respect of his claim:
Provided further that if any such article or thing,
other than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance
[controlled substance], the opium poppy, coca
plant or cannabis plant is liable to speedy and
natural decay, or if the court is of opinion that its
sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it may at
any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of
this sub-section shall, as nearly as may be
practicable, apply to the net proceeds of the sale.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. Section 60 deals with the liability of illicit drugs,
substances, articles, and conveyances to
confiscation. Sub-section (3) specifically provides
that any animal or conveyance used in carrying a
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be
liable to confiscation unless the owner proves that
such use occurred without his knowledge or
connivance, and that he, his agent (if any), and
16
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
the person-in-charge had taken all reasonable
precautions against such use. In other words,
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 under the said Act.
However, the Rules of 2022 (supra) do not provide any
such liberty to the owner nor do they empower the
Committee to release a vehicle/conveyance seized
under the Act.
20. Section 63 sets out the procedural mechanism
to be followed by the Special Court before passing any
order relating to seized property. It mandates that no
final order of confiscation of the conveyance can be
passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to
the person claiming ownership and without
considering the evidence adduced in support of such
claim. Importantly, the statute expressly vests this
adjudicatory power in the Special Court, thereby
excluding any administrative or executive authority,
such as the Drug Disposal Committee from
unilaterally determining the fate of a seized vehicle
17
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
where ownership is claimed and fortified by a lawful
defence in terms of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act.
21. Thus, a conjoint and holistic reading of Sections
60(3) and 63, makes it abundantly clear that the
power to determine whether or not a seized
conveyance is liable to confiscation vests in the
Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act and
not in any administrative or executive authority such
as the Drug Disposal Committee. The statute
stipulates that where an owner proves absence of
knowledge or connivance, the Special Court is dutybound to hear such claim before deciding the fate of
the seized vehicle including confiscation.
22. The legislative scheme thus contemplates 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 or a bona fide claimant, whose vehicle or
container might have been misused without his
knowledge or connivance, is not subjected to undue
hardship and unjust deprivation of his property.
23. Let us take two examples:
18
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(a) The vehicle owned by one ‘X’ is stolen and
thereafter, the thief uses the said conveyance to
transport narcotic or psychotropic drug. In such
a situation, would it be justified in leaving the
innocent owner to undergo the ordeal of moving
the Drug Disposal Committee after waiting for
the arrival of the chemical examiner’s report,
before the vehicle can be released?
(b) Where a bona fide transporter, assigns his
transport vehicle to a driver and the said driver,
in the process of carrying the consigned goods,
collects some narcotic material on the way and
is apprehended. In such a situation, would it be
justified to leave the owner of transport vehicle
to await the chemical examiner’s report and
then approach the Drug Disposal Committee for
release of the vehicle?
24. Our answer is in the negative. This can never be
the intent of the statute and the interpretation to this
effect would defeat the very purpose behind Section
60(3) of the NDPS Act read with Sections 451 and 457
of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS].
19
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
25. This position has been recently clarified by this
Court in Tarun Kumar Majhi v. State of West
Bengal10
, wherein it was observed as follows:
“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 before passing an order of
confiscation. However, the seized vehicle is not
liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized
vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by
the accused person without the owner’s
knowledge or connivance and that he had taken
all reasonable precautions against such use of
the seized vehicle by the accused person.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid
decision makes it abundantly clear that confiscation
or otherwise of a conveyance is to be determined
finally, only upon conclusion of the trial, and until
such adjudication, the ownership rights of the owner,
who prima facie establishes that he is unconnected
with the seized contraband, from claiming the seized
vehicle cannot be extinguished. It further
10 Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2025
20
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
underscores that the power of confiscation is coupled
with a duty to observe procedural fairness and to
ensure that no prejudice is caused to an innocent
owner who had neither knowledge nor willfully
participated or connived to commit the offence under
the NDPS Act.
27. On the contrary, the Rules of 2022 restrict the
mode of disposal of a seized conveyance to “tender or
auction”, as may be determined by the Drug Disposal
Committee. However, this restrictive procedural
framework must necessarily be read in harmony with
the parent statute. The Rules, being subordinate
legislation, cannot override or curtail the substantive
rights and procedural safeguards envisaged under
the parent legislation that is the NDPS Act. In
Bishwajit Dey (supra), this Court observed that the
provisions of the NDPS Act do not bar the concerned
Court from exercising its discretion, to release the
vehicle in interim custody. While the Act provides for
confiscation in appropriate cases, it does not
preclude the Court from granting interim release of
the vehicle where the circumstances so warrant. The
exercise of such judicial discretion is to be guided by
the facts and circumstances of each case and should
21
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the
rights of a bona fide owner at the same time
balancing the need for detention of the
vehicle/conveyance in appropriate cases.
28. Moreover, Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act
expressly make the provisions of the CrPC/BNSS
applicable to proceedings before the Special Court,
insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the
powers under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC
[Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS] pertaining to
disposal of property pending trial, would certainly
apply to proceedings before the Special Court. In the
absence of an express bar under the NDPS Act, the
mere fact that a vehicle may be liable to confiscation
under Section 60 cannot, by itself, operate to deny
interim custody to a bona fide owner.
29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding
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 [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. The
authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate
22
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
orders for interim custody during the pendency of the
trial, as well as to make final determination upon its
conclusion, continues to operate independently of the
disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules.
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, an outcome
wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the
NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental principles
of natural justice.
30. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
interpretation given by the High Court, holding that
pursuant to the promulgation of the Rules of 2022,
all other forums, including the Special Court, are
divested of the jurisdiction to decide the fate of a
seized conveyance under the NDPS Act and that the
aggrieved person must necessarily approach the
Drug Disposal Committee, is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
31. In the present case, it is manifest that the
appellant is the true owner of the vehicle, having valid
documents. The vehicle was lawfully engaged for
transportation of iron sheets weighing 29,400 MT.
23
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
The seized drug, i.e., 6 kilograms Ganja was found in
possession of the four accused persons present in the
vehicle. Neither was the appellant chargesheeted in
the matter nor did the prosecution allege him to be
acting in conspiracy. As a necessary corollary, it can
safely be presumed that the said contraband must
have been procured by the drivers and/or the
khalasis without the knowledge or connivance of the
appellant.
32. Having regard to the valuable consignment
being transported and the high value of the vehicle,
it does not stand to reason that the appellant, being
the owner thereof, would knowingly jeopardize his
business and property by permitting the
transportation of 6 kilograms of Ganja alongside
such valuable cargo.
33. The situation at hand may be examined with
reference to the principles enunciated by this Court
in paragraphs 29 and 30 of Bishwajit Dey (supra),
wherein four scenarios were delineated concerning
the seizure of contraband from a conveyance, along
with the general approach to be adopted by Courts
while considering the question of interim release of
such conveyances. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of
24
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
Bishwajit Dey (supra), are extracted hereinbelow for
ready reference: -
“29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from
conveyances can take place in a number of
situations, yet broadly speaking there are four
scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized
from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of
the vehicle is the person from whom the
possession of contraband drugs/substance is
recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is
recovered from the possession of the agent of
the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the
owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been
stolen by the accused and contraband is
recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly,
where the contraband is seized/ recovered from
a third-party occupant (with or without
consideration) of the vehicle without any
allegation by the police that the contraband was
stored and transported in the vehicle with the
owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first
two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or
his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an
accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the
owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not
be arrayed as an accused.
30. This Court is of the view that criminal law
has not to be applied in a vacuum but to the
facts of each case. Consequently, it is only in
the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not
be released on superdari till reverse burden of
proof is discharged by the accused-owner.
However, in the third and fourth scenarios,
where no allegation has been made in the
25
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
charge-sheet against the owner and/or his
agent, the vehicle should normally be released
in the interim on superdari subject to the owner
furnishing a bond that he would produce the
vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or
he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined
by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court
is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be
confiscated.
31. This Court clarifies that the aforesaid
discussion should not be taken as laying down a
rigid formula as it will be open to the trial
Courts to take a different view, if the facts of
the case so warrant.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. Although, on a superficial reading, the present
case might appear to fall within the second scenario
delineated in Bishwajit Dey (supra), where
contraband is recovered from the owner’s agent
(driver) who is arrayed as an accused, however, the
application of criminal law cannot be reduced to a
rigid or mechanical formula. Each case must be
examined in light of its peculiar facts and
circumstances. In the present matter, a holistic
consideration of the record reveals that the facts do
not align strictly with the said category for the
following reasons: -
26
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
i- Firstly, the appellant is the lawful owner with
valid documents, and the vehicle was
commercially engaged in transporting a
valuable consignment of 29,400 MT of iron
sheets. It is highly improbable to believe that
he would risk both the costly vehicle and the
high value consigned goods and his business
goodwill by knowingly allowing narcotics to
be transported along with the cargo.
ii- Secondly, the contraband, i.e., 6 kilograms of
Ganja was recovered from the four
chargesheeted accused persons.
iii- Thirdly, the appellant was not arraigned as
an accused and the chargesheet contains no
material suggesting that the appellant had
knowledge of or connived in the offence.
iv- It can thus, safely be presumed that the said
contraband must have been procured by the
drivers and/or the khalasis without the
knowledge or connivance of the appellant.
35. In view of the above, while the present case may
technically correspond to the second scenario as
enumerated in paragraph 29 of Bishwajit Dey
27
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No(s).8698 of 2025
(supra), the peculiar factual matrix warrants a more
pragmatic approach. It would, therefore, be expedient
in the interest of justice to grant interim custody of
the vehicle to the appellant, as the overall
circumstances clearly indicate his bonafides and
absence of any involvement in the drugs being carried
in the vehicle.
36. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove,
the appeal deserves to succeed. The impugned
judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by the
High Court is accordingly set aside. 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.
37. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 27, 2025.
