Background
A lorry (TN-57-AQ-2165) was intercepted and 66 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered. Three occupants were arrested and charged under the NDPS Act; a fourth person was later arrayed as an accused. The vehicle was seized.
The Trial Court (Additional District & Sessions Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai) acquitted all the accused, citing serious discrepancies in the investigation (crime number appearing in the arrest memo before FIR registration, absence of safe-custody register, unexplained plying of the vehicle during pandemic restrictions, and delay in sending samples). The Trial Court also directed release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period.
Long after the appeal period expired, the owner (appellant) applied for release. The Trial Court rejected the application. The Madras High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the vehicle could be released only through the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction after the trial.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside both the Trial Court’s rejection order and the High Court judgment, and directed immediate release of the vehicle to the owner.
Key Observations:
- Power of Confiscation Lies with the Trial Court
Under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, the Court trying the offence must decide whether any seized article or conveyance is liable to confiscation under Sections 60–62, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged. The power of confiscation is statutory and resides with the Court, not the Drug Disposal Committee. - Confiscation Proceedings are Distinct
An acquittal does not automatically entitle the owner to release of the vehicle, because the standard of proof differs (preponderance of probabilities in confiscation vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal trial). However, if no confiscation proceedings were initiated during or immediately after the trial, the Court retains the power to order release. - Role of Drug Disposal Committee
The 2022 Rules permit disposal of conveyances, but only with the permission of the Court. The DDC cannot independently sell or dispose of a vehicle without Court orders. If the owner does not seek custody, the Investigating Officer may move the Court for reference to the DDC, but only after notice and hearing to the owner. Sale proceeds must be deposited with the Court. - Application of CrPC Provisions
There is no bar on invoking Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC (or corresponding BNSS provisions) for interim or final release of a vehicle in NDPS cases, as held in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam (2025). - Facts of the Present Case
The prosecution case itself was found highly suspect due to multiple investigative lapses. No confiscation proceedings had been initiated. In these circumstances, the original direction of the Trial Court for release of the vehicle was justified. The subsequent refusal was erroneous.
Directions
- The lorry (TN-57-AQ-2165) shall be released forthwith to the appellant-owner.
- If the vehicle has already been transmitted to the DDC, the DDC shall release it immediately.
Significance
The judgment clarifies the interplay between Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the 2022 Disposal Rules, and the general powers under the CrPC/BNSS. It reinforces that confiscation is a judicial function of the Trial Court and that vehicles need not remain in limbo indefinitely after an acquittal when no confiscation proceedings have been initiated.
CASE DETAILS:
- Case Title: R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18633 of 2025
- Citation: 2026 INSC 946
- Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala & K. Vinod Chandran
- Date: 24 August 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 