NDPS Conveyances Cannot Be Confiscated or Disposed of by the Drug Disposal Committee Without Judicial Control

1. Introduction

This reportable decision clarifies the respective powers of the criminal court and the Drug Disposal Committee (“DDC”) over vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The principal issue was whether a seized vehicle could be withheld from its owner or independently dealt with by the DDC after the criminal trial had ended in acquittal and the trial court had already directed its release.

A lorry belonging to the appellant was intercepted, allegedly carrying 66 kilograms of ganja. Four persons were prosecuted under the NDPS Act. The trial ended in their acquittal because of serious defects in the prosecution case. The trial court also directed that the lorry be released to its owner after expiry of the appeal period.

When the appellant later applied for actual delivery of the vehicle, the trial court rejected the request. The Madras High Court affirmed that decision, holding that disposal had to take place through the DDC under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the applicable Standing Orders, and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

2. Facts and Procedural Background

• The police intercepted an Ashok Leyland lorry and allegedly recovered 66 kilograms of ganja.
• Three occupants were arrested and arrayed as A1 to A3. A fourth person who allegedly fled was later arrested as A4.
• The prosecution examined eight witnesses, produced thirteen documents and marked eight material objects.
• The accused produced three defence documents.
• All accused were acquitted, and the trial court directed release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period.
• No confiscation proceedings were undertaken during the trial or immediately after the judgment dated 20 January 2023.
• Only on 18 October 2023 did the investigating officer reportedly seek permission to refer the vehicle to the DDC.
• The appellant’s subsequent application for delivery of the vehicle was rejected by the trial court, and that rejection was upheld by the High Court.

Grounds of acquittal

The trial court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt because:

1. The arrest memo prepared at 8 p.m. on 4 May 2021 contained a crime number generated only when the FIR was registered on 5 May 2021.
2. No police-station register recorded when the contraband was placed in safe custody.
3. Official witnesses could not explain how the lorry was operating despite pandemic-related transport restrictions.
4. There was delay in sending the samples to court and thereafter to the laboratory.

The Supreme Court also noted further irregularities, including the absence of the road’s name in the seizure mahazar, lack of reliable proof of weighment, failure to record the prior information in the General Diary, an inadequate consent letter, uncertainty about the exact place of recovery, and failure to conduct sampling before a Magistrate.

3. Questions Before the Supreme Court

1. Does the DDC have independent authority to confiscate or dispose of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act?
2. Can Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) be used for interim release of a vehicle in an NDPS case?
3. Does acquittal automatically entitle the vehicle owner to its release?
4. Was the trial court’s original direction releasing the appellant’s vehicle legally valid?

4. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that:

• Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act vests the power to decide confiscation in the court trying the offence, not in the DDC.
• The 2022 Rules permit disposal of a conveyance, but they cannot displace the court’s statutory power of confiscation.
• The DDC cannot independently sell or otherwise dispose of a vehicle pending criminal proceedings without an order of the competent court.
• Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, or their analogous provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, may be invoked for interim custody of vehicles seized in NDPS cases.
• If no owner seeks interim custody, the investigating officer may apply to the court for reference to the DDC. Both the court and the DDC must give the owner an opportunity of hearing.
• If the vehicle is auctioned, the proceeds must be deposited before the jurisdictional court because disposal is not equivalent to confiscation.
• An acquittal does not automatically compel release of the vehicle, since criminal prosecution and confiscation involve different standards of proof.
• On the particular facts, the original direction releasing the lorry was fully justified.

The Court set aside both the trial court’s later order refusing delivery and the High Court’s affirming judgment. It directed immediate release of vehicle TN-57-AQ-2165 to the appellant, including release by the DDC if the vehicle had already been transferred to it.

5. Analysis

5.1 Statutory allocation of confiscation power

Section 63(1) requires the court, upon conviction, acquittal or discharge, to decide whether an article or thing seized under the NDPS Act is liable to confiscation under Sections 60, 61 or 62. The statutory wording makes confiscation a judicial determination.

Section 60 includes a conveyance used to carry prohibited substances within the category of property potentially liable to confiscation. Section 60(3), however, protects an owner who proves both:

1. that the vehicle was used without the owner’s knowledge or connivance; and
2. that the owner had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

The Court therefore rejected any interpretation under which the DDC could independently determine that the vehicle stood forfeited to the State.

5.2 Disposal is not confiscation

Rule 16 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 permits narcotic drugs, controlled substances and conveyances to be disposed of in the manner contemplated by Section 52A. This serves practical purposes: preventing deterioration, theft, substitution and unnecessary storage.

The Supreme Court drew a crucial distinction between physical disposal and legal confiscation. Disposal may involve the sale of a deteriorating vehicle, while confiscation determines who is legally entitled to the vehicle or its proceeds. The Rules govern the former; Section 63 reserves the latter for the court.

Because delegated rules cannot override the governing statute, Rule 16 must be read harmoniously with Section 63. Accordingly, DDC action concerning a conveyance requires judicial permission.

5.3 Interim release under the CrPC

The Court reaffirmed that there is no express bar in the NDPS Act preventing courts from using Sections 451 and 457 CrPC to grant interim custody of seized vehicles. Vehicles kept in open police or court premises may deteriorate and lose their value during prolonged trials. Judicial release subject to appropriate conditions preserves both the property and the State’s eventual rights.

The corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita may similarly be used.

5.4 Procedure where no owner claims the vehicle

The judgment establishes the following safeguards:

1. If the owner does not seek interim custody, the investigating officer may apply to the trial court for disposal through the DDC.
2. The court must issue notice to the owner and provide an opportunity of hearing before making the reference.
3. The DDC must also hear the owner before conducting a public auction.
4. Any sale proceeds must be deposited before the jurisdictional court.
5. The final question of confiscation remains for the court trying the NDPS offence.

5.5 Acquittal and confiscation are distinct

The Court cautioned that acquittal does not invariably require release of the seized vehicle. Criminal guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, whereas confiscation may be determined on the preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, failure to convict an accused does not by itself eliminate the possibility of confiscation.

Nevertheless, the court must actually exercise its power under Section 63 and hear the affected owner. Confiscation cannot arise automatically, nor can the DDC substitute its own decision for that of the court.

6. Precedents Cited

Nahoorkani v. State

The High Court relied on Nahoorkani v. State, which held that proceedings under Section 63 should be undertaken during the trial and that the State’s right to confiscate property seized under the NDPS Act exists irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution. It also treated Section 63 as modifying the ordinary operation of Sections 451 and 452 CrPC and substantially restricted the court’s jurisdiction over seized conveyances.

The Supreme Court expressly held that this approach ran counter to its binding interpretation in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam. In particular, the High Court’s reasoning failed to preserve the statutory distinction between the judicial power of confiscation and the administrative machinery for disposal.

Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam

The Court followed and fully approved Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241. That decision held that the trial court must decide confiscation at the conclusion of proceedings, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged. Before confiscation, the affected owner must receive an opportunity of hearing.

Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam also identified four common situations involving vehicles carrying contraband:

1. The owner is personally in possession of the vehicle and drugs.
2. The owner’s driver or cleaner, acting as the owner’s agent, is in possession.
3. The vehicle has been stolen.
4. A third party in the vehicle possesses the contraband.

Interim release may ordinarily be inappropriate in the first two situations, where the owner or the owner’s agent is likely to be an accused. It may be justified in the third and fourth situations, where the owner is not implicated. The present judgment clarified that this classification concerns interim custody, not automatic final release.

The precedent further established that Sections 451 and 457 CrPC remain available in NDPS matters. This principle formed the foundation of the Court’s conclusion that administrative disposal mechanisms cannot extinguish judicial control over seized property.

7. Application to the Present Case

The trial court had already directed release of the vehicle after acquitting all accused. No timely confiscation proceedings were initiated, and the alleged interception and recovery were themselves surrounded by serious procedural irregularities.

Taken together, the defects made the interception suspect and supported the trial court’s decision under Section 63(1). Once release had been ordered, the appellant’s later application required only verification of his ownership credentials. It was impermissible to defeat the existing release order by directing him to approach the DDC.

8. Complex Concepts Simplified

Interim custody

Temporary possession of seized property during the case, usually subject to conditions ensuring that it can be produced when required.

Confiscation

A judicial determination that property is forfeited to the State because it is legally connected with an offence.

Disposal

The physical handling or sale of seized property to prevent deterioration, theft or storage problems. Disposal does not itself decide ownership.

Beyond reasonable doubt

The strict standard applied to criminal conviction.

Preponderance of probabilities

A lower civil standard under which a fact is accepted if it is more likely than not.

Knowledge or connivance

“Knowledge” means awareness of the unlawful use; “connivance” means conscious acquiescence or indirect participation.

Harmonious interpretation

Reading statutory provisions and subordinate rules together so that both operate consistently, without permitting the rules to override the statute.

9. Impact of the Judgment

• Judicial control: DDCs cannot independently confiscate or auction NDPS vehicles without court authorization.
• Owner protection: Notice and hearing are mandatory before judicial reference and before DDC auction.
• Preservation of property: Courts may grant interim custody rather than allow vehicles to deteriorate during lengthy trials.
• Protection of State interests: Auction proceeds remain with the jurisdictional court until the confiscation question is decided.
• Effect of acquittal clarified: Acquittal is relevant but does not automatically determine the fate of seized property.
• Correction of High Court doctrine: The restrictive approach in Nahoorkani v. State can no longer justify excluding ordinary judicial powers over seized conveyances.

10. Conclusion

R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu establishes that the DDC is an administrative disposal mechanism, not a confiscating authority. Section 63 places the decisive power with the court trying the NDPS offence. Any disposal of a conveyance must therefore operate under judicial supervision, with notice and hearing to the owner.

The judgment balances effective management of seized property with procedural fairness and proprietary rights. On the exceptional facts—acquittal, grave defects in the prosecution case, absence of timely confiscation proceedings and an existing release order—the Supreme Court correctly directed immediate return of the appellant’s lorry.