CRL RC(MD)/1673/2026 of Kumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 14.10.2026.

03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated 24.08.2026 of the Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, hereinafter referred to as ‘the special court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl.MP.No.1808/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/owner of the vehicle under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, APE AUTO D3S PASSENGERS BS III, bearing registration number TN 57 AQ 2941, the property in PR No.303/2026 involved in Cr No.245/2026 under S.8(c) r/w S.20(b)(ii)(B), S.25 and S.29(i) NDPS Act on the file of Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District, the revision petitioner/ petitioner/owner of the vehicle has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this

criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the special court is that a vehicle, APE AUTO D3S PASSENGERS BS III, bearing registration number TN 57 AQ 2941, is said to have involved in Cr No.245/2026 under S.8(c) r/w S.20(b)(ii)(B), S.25 and S.29(i) NDPS Act on the file of Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District, that in pursuance of such registration of the criminal case, the aforesaid property has been seized by the respondent police, that the revision petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, that revision petitioner is not the accused, that the aforesaid property is now in the interim custody of the respondent police but without proper care or maintenance, that the aforesaid property, if left idle without proper maintenance, would become useless and ruined and that therefore, the interim custody of the aforesaid property needs to be granted to the revision petitioner being its owner.

06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision respondent in the special court is that the vehicle concerned has been used for the smuggling of 1.150kgs of ganja, that the investigation is

still pending, that if the property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner and that therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the property concerned deserves for dismissal.

07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the special court.

08. On enquiry, the special court has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.1808/2026 on the finding that the vehicle concerned has been used for the smuggling of ganja and that the investigation is still pending.

09. Heard both sides, and perused all material records.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the property is not only against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of interim custody of the vehicles, that the special court, without due application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections

raised by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order of the special court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that therefore, this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs to be allowed, setting aside the order of the special court and thereby granting the interim custody of the property concerned.

11. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the revision respondent would submit that the vehicle concerned has been used for the smuggling of 1.150kgs of ganja, the investigation is still pending, that if the property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner, that therefore, the order of the special court is lawful and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition deserves for dismissal in limine.

12. On careful consideration of the criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner, the related material records and the submissions made on both sides, this court formulates the following point for determination: Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get

such order setting aside the dismissal order dated 24.08.2026 of the special court in Crl MP No.1808/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/ owner of the vehicle under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, APE AUTO D3S PASSENGERS BS III, bearing registration number TN 57 AQ 2941, the property in PR No.303/2026 involved in Cr No.245/2026 under S.8(c) r/w S.20(b)(ii) (B), S.25 and S.29(i) NDPS Act on the file of Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District, as prayed for?

14. The Point

(1) S.497 BNSS deals inter alia with the custody of the property, produced before a criminal court, pending investigation, inquiry or trial. S.498 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, produced before a criminal court, at the conclusion of investigation, inquiry or trial. S.503 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, not produced before a criminal court.

(2) S.497 BNSS would read as under:

497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

(1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or

trial, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the investigation, inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court or the Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody; (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

(4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.

(5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub- section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been

taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter.

(3) S.498 BNSS (relevant provisions thereof) would read as under:

498. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

(1) When an investigation, inquiry or trial in any criminal case is concluded, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court or the Magistrate, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section

(1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. ………….. …………..

(4) S.503 BNSS (relevant provision thereof) would read as under:

503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer

is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. …………

(5) Therefore, it is clear that S.497, S.498 and S.503 BNSS deal with the custody or delivery, as the case may be, of the property involved in a criminal case, and such claim of custody or delivery can be made by a person entitled to the possession thereof.

(6) A vehicle is said to have involved in this case on hand and accordingly, the aforesaid property have been seized by the police.

(7) On careful study on the order dated 24.08.2026 of the special court passed in Crl MP No.1808/2026, this court finds that the special court has dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS on the ground that the vehicle concerned has been used for the smuggling of ganja and that the investigation is still pending.

(8) At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283) and the relevant portion thereof would read as under: '17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.'

(9) Selvam V State by Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 288) is also a case where this court, while dealing with the return of a vehicle to the claimant/owner of the vehicle, has held as under: '6……………, it would be seen that in directing return of vehicles, even to Owner of the vehicle persons, in the manner contemplated in the decisions of the Apex Court of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) CTC 175 and General Insurance Council and others V State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (6) SCC 768, no trampling of powers bestowed upon the special courts under Section 452 CrPC is involved. Therefore, it would be fit and proper to deal with

applications seeking return of vehicles without being clouded with the vision of the claimant being an Owner of the vehicle.'

(10) Incidentally, this court would like to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Manimaran V State of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 946), where it has been held as under:

13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in the custody of the Police or the Court, during the pendency of the trial, may deteriorate and become unusable in the long run. It is hence the finding of this Court in Biswajit Dey that the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC (or the analogous provisions of the BNSS) can be invoked even in NDPS cases.

(11) It is therefore clear that keeping a vehicle involved in an offence, either in police station or in court, for a long time is not warranted and that an application seeking the interim custody of the vehicle needs to be dealt with judiciously and expeditiously even in NDPS cases, regardless of the fact that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle in the offence concerned.

(12) No confiscation proceedings are reported to have been initiated against the vehicle concerned.

(13) Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is entitled to get the interim custody of the vehicle in such terms as detailed hereunder, and this point is decided accordingly.

14. In the result,

(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/owner of the vehicle is hereby allowed,

(2) that the order dated 24.08.2026 of the special court in Crl.MP.No.1808/2026 is hereby reversed,

(3) that the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.1808/2026 on the file of the special court is hereby allowed but on the conditions,

(i) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/ owner of the vehicle shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the special court,

(ii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/owner of the vehicle shall file into the special court the photographs showing all the four sides of the vehicle along with the original registration certificate, and

(iii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/ owner of the

vehicle, in view of the prayer of ‘interim custody’, shall execute an undertaking, in the form of an affidavit, before the special court to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle, as it is, before the court as and when directed,

(4) that special court is hereby directed to hand over the vehicle concerned to the revision petitioner/petitioner/ owner of the vehicle only after the compliance by the revision petitioner/petitioner/ owner of the vehicle of the aforesaid conditions. 30.10.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gns To

1. The Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Madurai District

2. The Inspector Of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

B.MURUGESAN, J. gns Order made in CRL.RC.(MD)No.1673 of 2026 30.10.2026