Madras High Court
Amutha vs State Through on 4 August, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 07.03.2025, 20.03.2025,
27.03.2025 and 29.03.2025
Pronounced on : 04.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1130, 1195, 1234, 1291, 1301,
1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196, 201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351,
394, 439, 467, 504, 512, 518 and 536 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1557 of 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023
Amutha ... Petitioner
Vs.
State through
Station House Officer,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.153 of 2022) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act
Cases, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.3201 of 2022 dated 04.01.2023 set aside the
same and allow this revision petition.
1/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1004 of 2024
Rishav Devsahu ... Petitioner
Vs.
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt of India, Madurai.
(Crime No.48/1/21 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the
learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in
Crl.M.P.No.2444 of 2024 in C.C.No.136 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024 by
allowing this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Kasinathadurai
For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Senior Counsel for NCB Cases
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1117 of 2024
K.Petchimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
2/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vickramasingapuram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.330 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 03.10.2024
made in Crl.M.P.No.1774 of 2024 in Crime No.330 of 2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1130 of 2024
K.Petchimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vickramasingapuram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.330 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.10.2024
made in Crl.M.P.No.1754 of 2024 in Crime No.330 of 2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and set aside the same.
3/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1195 of 2024
1.Seethalakshmi
2.Solaikani ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.250 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1656 of 2024 dated 28.06.2024 by the Additional District
Court, (Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases), Madurai, set aside
the same, allow the revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1234 of 2024
Rajesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
4/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
The Inspector of Police,
PEW Karur Police Station,
Karur District.
(Crime No.26 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.04.2024
made in Crl.M.P.No.1559 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the
file of the respondent police and set aside the same by allowing the above
revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Harish
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1291 of 2024
MeeraMaideen ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
PEW-Madurai City,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.203 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in
5/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.M.P.No.2295 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal
and void, consequently, direct the respondent police to release the Apple
iPhone 14.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1301 of 2024
Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.377 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.5565 of 2024
dated 19.11.2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Special Court for E.C & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai and set aside the
same by allowing the revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
6/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1365 of 2024
Syed Ibrahim ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.162 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court
for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai dated 08.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.
5361 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Sections 503 and 497 Cr.P.C.
and set aside the same as illegal and entrust the interim custody of the
vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-65-AL-7025 Maruthi Suzuki Swift VXI,
Chassis No.MBHCZC63SC 589732, Engine No.K12MP1216923 to the
petitioner, in a manner known to law by allow the above criminal revision
petition as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.150 of 2025
Gomathi ... Petitioner
7/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kodavasal Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
(Crime No.487 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1852 of 2024 dated
08.10.2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge / Special Officer,
Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur and to set
aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.AK.Gopalan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.171 of 2025
Gokul Prasad ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sempatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.195 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records and set aside the order passed in
8/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.M.P.No.3864 of 2024 dated 02.01.2025 on the file of the learned
Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai pertaining
to Crime No.195 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and
consequently direct the respondent to grant the interim custody of the
petitioner's vehicle (Lorry (Brown Color) bearing Registration
No.TN-40K-8739 to the petitioner by allowing this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.176 of 2025
P.Sivapandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Station House Officer (SHO),
Usilampatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.359 of 2021) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.3134 of 2024 by the learned Principal Special Court for
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai dated
23.10.2024 an set aside the same directing the respondent to return the
vehicle TATA ZEST XM QJET 90PS – Sedan car bearing
9/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Regn.No.TN-63-AJ-5445 for interim custody to the petitioner which
seized by the respondent police from the petitioner in Crime No.359 of
2021 and the same was produced before Court and remanded in R.P.R.No.
403 of 2021 pending trial in C.C.No.816 of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Anandan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.196 of 2025
Kalyani ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur West Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.494 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 17.12.2024
made in Cr.M.P.No.8439 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District
Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act,
Thanjavur and set aside the order and direct the respondent herein to grant
the interim custody of the vehicle viz., Bajaj Pulsar-220 Two-wheeler
bearing Registration No.TN-49-CK-7363, which has been seized by the
respondent herein in Crime No.494 of 2024.
10/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.201 of 2025
Rajapushpam ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu through
The Inspector of Police,
Colachel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.284 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to modify the order dated 28.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2006 of
2024 with regarding of petitioner's Mobile VIVO V-30 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District and allow the
above criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.219 of 2025
K.Sakthiyendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
11/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.310 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order in Cr.M.P.No.3370
of 2024 dated 22.01.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Madurai in Crime No.310 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and
set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondent to release the
petitioner's vehicle “Maruthi Swift bearing Registration No.TN-02-
W-5644”
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.285 of 2025
J.Karthick Kannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Station House Officer,
Perungudi Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.151 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.
12/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
3325 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai dated 11.11.2024 and set
aside the same and to allow this criminal revision case.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.312 of 2025
Vimalkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
(Crime No.31 of 2025) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to Cr.M.P.No.713 of 2025 on the
file of the learned Additional District Court / Special Court under
Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur dated 07.02.2025 and to set aside
the same and further direct the learned Additional District Court / Special
Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur to grant interim
custody of vehicle Maruthi Dzire car VDI bearing Registration No.TN-31-
CB-2055 to the petitioner.
13/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Benazir Begum
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.334 of 2025
S.Mohamed Rabeek ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
PEW Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.876 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to order dated 10.01.2025
passed by the Additional District and Session Judge / Presiding Officer
Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.
5863 of 2024 in Crime No.867 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police
station and set aside the same by allowing the above criminal revision
petition and further directing the respondent police to return the Four
Wheeler namely Innova bearing Registration No.TN-01-AB-8544 to the
revision petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balasubramanian
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
14/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.340 of 2025
Amanullah Khan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.593 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by
the learned Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act Cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.359 of 2025 order dated
04.03.2025 and set aside the same and allow this revision petition and
grant interim custody of the petitioner's vehicle model KTM 390 DUKE
VX bearing Registration No.TN-74-BD-1502 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.351 of 2025
V.Sonu ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
15/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.535 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records and set aside the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.358 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025 on the file of the learned
Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai pertaining to
Crime No.535 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police and
consequently direct the respondent to grant the interim custody of the
petitioner's vehicle (Car) bearing Registration No.TN-02-BJ-7513 to the
petitioner by allowing this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.394 of 2025
Akash Mariappan Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
P.E.W. Kovilpatti Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.489 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order dated 31.01.2025 in
16/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2025 in Crime No.489 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, set aside the same and
consequentially direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti to
return the vehicle Pulsar 150 bearing Registration No.TN-96-W-7915 to
the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.439 of 2025
Muhammed Sahil B.P. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.465 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS
Act Cases, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.462 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 and set
aside the same and consequently order to return the petitioner's Toyota
Etios Livacar bearing registration No.KL-47-F-3653.
17/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
For Petitioner : Mr.Shaazim Shagar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2025
Poomani ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Naducavery Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.423 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records made in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2025 on the file
of the learned Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court
under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, filed by the petitioner under
Section 497 r/w 503(2) BNSS for return of vehicle and set aside the
dismissal order dated 27.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Surliraja
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.504 of 2025
Vadivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
18/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
State of Tamilnadu represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
Chinnalapatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.20 of 2025) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned
Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.527 of 2025 dated 18.03.2025 set aside
the same and allow the revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chandrabose
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.512 of 2025
Murugeswathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sawyerpuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.111 of 2021) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.699 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
19/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Thoothukudi dated 12.03.2025 and set aside the same and handed over the
Honda Splendor Plus bike bearing Registration No.TN-92-A-2328 to the
petitioner within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sathiya
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.518 of 2025
Valarmathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by (SHO)
The Inspector of Police,
PEW Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.879 of 2024) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.
357 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Madurai dated 04.03.2025
and set aside the same and consequently direct the trial Court to hand over
the seized vehicle to the interim custody to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
20/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.536 of 2025
Mahesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thuvarankurichi Police Station,
Trichy District. ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442
B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order dated 10.09.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.4011 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Special Court for NDPS and EC Act Cases, Pudukottai
and set aside the order in so far Para 8 clause (ii) imposing condition of
restrain or alienation is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004,
1117, 1130, 1195, 1234, 1291, 1301, 1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196,
201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504 and 518 of 2025 are
directed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3201 of 2022, 2444 of
21/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
2024, 1774 of 2024, 1754 of 2024, 1656 of 2024, 1559 of 2024, 2295 of
2024, 5565 of 2024, 5361 of 2024, 1852 of 2024, 3864 of 2024, 3134 of
2024, 8439 of 2024, 2006 of 2024, 3370 of 2024, 3325 of 2024, 713 of
2025, 5863 of 2024, 359 of 2025, 358 of 2025, 186 of 2025, 462 of 2025,
20 of 2025, 527 of 2025 and 357 of 2025 dated 04.01.2023, 06.09.2024,
16.10.2024, 16.10.2024, 28.06.2024, 27.04.2024, 26.03.2024, 19.11.2024,
08.11.2024, 08.10.2024, 02.01.2025, 23.10.2024, 17.12.2024, 28.11.2024,
22.01.2025, 11.11.2024, 07.02.2025, 10.01.2025, 04.03.2025, 04.03.2025,
31.01.2025, 07.03.2025, 27.02.2025, 18.03.2025 and 04.03.2025
respectively, dismissing the petitions filed under Section 497 B.N.S.S.
(451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C.)
2. The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.512 of 2025 and
536 of 2025 are directed against the conditions and condition No.(ii)
respectively passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.6699 of 2025 and 4011 of 2024 dated
12.03.2025 and 10.09.2024.
3. The orders now under challenge came to be passed in the
petitions filed under Section 497 B.N.S.S. seeking interim custody of the
22/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
vehicles and cell phones involved in the cases registered under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called
as ‘NDPS Act‘)
4. The petitioners in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1234 of 2024, 1365 of 2024,
219 of 2025, and 394 of 2025 are the accused in their respective cases. In
contrast, the petitioners in other cases have varying relationships:
– Relative of the first accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023)
– Mother of the first accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1195 of 2024, 196
of 2025, 201 of 2025, and 518 of 2025)
– Family friend of the accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.150 of 2025)
– Friend of the accused/third accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.285 of
2025, 351 of 2025, 504 of 2025, and 512 of 2025)
– Brother of the seventh accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.312 of 2025)
– Purchaser from the accused (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.334 of 2025)
– Father of the accused’s friend (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.340 of 2025)
Additionally, the petitioners in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1004 of 2024,
1117 of 2024, 1130 of 2024, 1291 of 2024, 1301 of 2024, 171 of 2025,
176 of 2025, 439 of 2025, 467 of 2025, and 536 of 2025 are third-party
owners of vehicles.
23/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1234, 1301 and 1365 of
2024 and 150, 171, 176, 196, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467,
504 and 518 of 2025
5. In a similar batch of revision cases, challenging the orders passed
under Sections 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C., this Court dealt with the issues raised
in the present revisions and passed a common order in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.
646 of 2024 batch dated 20.12.2024 (Loyola Johnson Vs. The State
represented by the Inspector of Police, Pamban Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District) and the relevant passages are extracted
hereunder:-
“4. Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relate to custody and
disposal of the property during a criminal investigation or
trial. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with the custody and disposal
of the property that is pending in enquiry or trial and
whereas, Section 457 Cr.P.C. deals with the disposal of the
property after the trial or enquiry.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283
has held that a speedier procedure needs to be evolved for
the disposal of articles kept at police stations and Section
451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised and implemented
expeditiously as it is of no use to keep the property including
the vehicles at the police stations for a long period and laid24/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchdown the procedure to be followed by the police officials for
custody of different kinds of property, such as valuable
articles, money, vehicles, etc.
6. It is pertinent to note that Section 51 of NDPS Act
contemplates that the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent
with the provisions of NDPS Act, to all warrants issued and
arrests, searches and seizures made under NDPS Act.
7. Section 5 Cr.P.C. states that nothing in the Code will
affect any special law or local law that is in force, any
special jurisdiction or power or any special form of
procedure prescribed by another law that is in force.
8. Section 52A of NDPS Act deals about the disposal of
seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
9. It is pertinent to note that vide Amendment Act 16 of
2014, the words, “narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances
and controlled substances or conveyances” came to be
added. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer Section 60(3)
of NDPS Act,
“60(3) :- Any animal or conveyance used in
carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substance, or any article liable to confiscation
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (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 the25/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchperson-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that
each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against
such use.”
10. Section 63 of NDPS Act deals with the procedure in
making confiscations which states that in the trial of offences
under NDPS 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 be
confiscated under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and
if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order
confiscation accordingly. Section 63(2) states that if 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.
11. In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
2005 SCC Online P&H 807, a Division Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court has held that irrespective of the
decision of the trial, any article or thing seized under NDPS
Act, which are used in the commission of offence have got to
be confiscated and the relevant passage is extracted
hereunder:-
“15. …. We are surprised that the said has been
passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who
would have no jurisdiction to dispose of such an
application in view of Section 63 of the Act, which makes it26/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchclear that irrespective of the decision of the trial, any
article or thing seized under this Act, which are used in the
commission of offence have got to be confiscated and the
Special Judge is obliged to start separate proceedings in
relation to confiscation after expiry of one month, if no one
comes forth to claim the property. In view of the provision
of Section 63 of the Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 will stand
modified to the extent indicated in the aforementioned
section and any claimant to the property will be obliged to
satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in
Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Act before he is returned the
custody of the vehicle taken into custody when it was being
used for transporting a narcotic substance. In the present
case as already pointed out by us, the proceedings under
Section 63 of the Act were not initiated until the disposal
of the trial, which is not warranted by law. The
proceedings for confiscation have got to be completed
during the pendency of the trial and are in no way
connected therewith as delay therein would only lessen the
value of the property so confiscated and thereby cause loss
to the State or the owner.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Kallo Bai reported in (2017)
14 SCC 502 has specifically observed that criminal
prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings, that27/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchthe two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a
distinct purpose and that the object of confiscation
proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication
with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means
used for committing the offence while the object of the
prosecution is to punish the offender.
13. In Mustafa Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
reported in AIR 2019 SC 3949, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
strong words has clarified that Sections 451, 452 and 457
Cr.P.C. must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no
escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that
matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure
of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order
dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or
its release thereof.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai‘s case above
referred, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
vehicles need not be kept idle in police station and the same
can be released by invoking provision under Section 451
Cr.P.C. but under NDPS Act no occasion may arise for
releasing the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the simple
reason that Section 63 of NDPS Act deals about the
confiscation proceedings and by virtue of amendment in the
year 2014 in NDPS Act by including the conveyance in
Section 52A of NDPS Act as well as by introduction of28/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchforfeiture of illegally acquired property under Chapter VA.
15. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 relied
on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
“20. To sum up we direct as under:
(1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances
is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-
charge of the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer
concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an
application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall
be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required
under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in
the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and
sampling’. The sampling shall be done under the
supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and
14 of this order.
(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so
also the State Governments shall within six months from
today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for
the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances
duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to
prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.
29/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
The Central Government and the State Governments shall
also designate an officer each for their respective storage
facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated
in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security
against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.
(3) The Central Government and the State
Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for
each district in the States and depending upon the extent of
seizure and store required, one storage facility for more
than one districts.
(4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in
the police maalkhans and other places used for storage
shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the
directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under
the heading ’disposal of drugs’.
21. Keeping in view the importance of the subject we
request the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned to
appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side
to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective
States in regard to the compliance with the above
directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate
directions for a speedy action on the administrative and
even on the judicial side in public interest wherever
considered necessary.”
30/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
16. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued
various directions, the same were not followed in true spirit
till now.
17. As already pointed out, Section 63 of NDPS Act
gives power to the Court to decide whether any article or
thing seized under NDPS Act is liable to be confiscated in
terms of Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS Act. Section 57A of
NDPS Act contemplates that the officer notified under
Section 53 shall make a report of the illegally acquired
properties to the jurisdictional competent authority within 90
days of the arrest or seizure.
18. As already pointed out, Section 63(1) of NDPS Act
states that the Court if decides that the article is so liable, it
may order confiscation accordingly and as per Section 63(2)
of NDPS Act, if the person, who committed the offence, is not
known or cannot be found, the Court may inquire into and
decide such liability and may order confiscation accordingly.
But proviso contemplates 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 he produces
in respect of his claim.
19. Considering the above provisions, it is very much
clear that after seizure of the articles or things, the competent
authority has to proceed to decide and subject to the decision
to proceed with the confiscation proceedings.
31/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
20. It is pertinent to note that Rule 257 of Tamil Nadu
Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 states that the Court may
entertain Section 451 Cr.P.C. subject to the procedure laid
down in special statute.
21. A learned Judge of this Court in Nahoorkani Vs.
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi
Police Station in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.41 of 2019 dated
16.06.2023 has held that in view of the provision under
Section 63 of NDPS Act, the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452
Cr.P.C. will stand modified to the extent and any claimant to
the property will be obliged to satisfy the Court in terms of
the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS
Act before he is returned the custody of the vehicle taken into
consideration when it was being used for transporting a
narcotic substance, that therefore, when the conveyance was
seized under NDPS Act, the return of property does not arise
as contemplated under Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. and it is
liable to be confiscated under Section 63 of NDPS Act and
that the Magistrate may not have jurisdiction to entertain a
petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C in the light of the
Special Rule made under Section 52A of NDPS Act. It is
pertinent to note that the learned Judge has also issued
several directions to the Special Courts and the investigating
officers with regard to the disposal of the conveyances seized
under NDPS Act.
32/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
22. The Central Government, in pursuance of the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mohanlal‘s case above referred, has introduced Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, in which, Chapter IV
deals about the disposal of the properties including
conveyance. Rule 3(5) provides for preparing a detailed
inventory of the conveyances and attaching it to the
panchnama. Rule 16 provides that the conveyance, including
the vehicles can be disposed of immediately after the seizure.
Originally under section 52A also it is provided that it can be
disposed of immediately after seizure. But under the Rule 17,
disposal of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances can be made after the
receipt of the chemical analysis report. Rule 23(5)(e)
provides that the seized conveyances shall be sold by way of
tender or auction as may be determined by the Drug
Disposal Committee, after the Drug Disposal Committee
verifies the engine number, chassis number and other details
mentioned in panchnama and certify the inventory thereof, in
terms of Rule 21(3). Since the Chemical Analysis report is to
reach the court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
samples as mandated under Rule 14, the whole process
leading to the stage of disposal of the vehicle would
culminate in a month’s time. Section 63(2) Proviso also
provides that no order of confiscation of an article or thing
33/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
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. In the light of the above rules and time
frame fixed, it cannot be said that the vehicle would be kept
idle for long period exposed to sun and rain, warranting for
granting of interim custody of the vehicle.
23. As rightly contended by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, combined reading of the provisions of
2022 Rules would make it clear that the vehicles cannot be
detained indefinitely by the prosecution agency or by the
concerned Court. In the light of the above rules and time
frame fixed, it cannot be stated that if the vehicle is kept idle
in open place for long period exposing to sun and rain, the
value of the vehicle would be deteriorated warranting for
granting of interim custody of the vehicle. Since the
amendment provisions of NDPS Act and newly introduced
2022 Rules mandate the disposal of the property including
conveyances seized under NDPS Act within a short span of
time irrespective of trial, the question of granting interim
custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of the
main case does not arise at all.
6. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would rely on
a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dev Vs. The State
34/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
of Assam in Crl.A.No.87 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025, wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that in the absence of any specific bar under the
NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke
the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of
the seized vehicles pending final decision of the criminal case.
7. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would also rely
on some decisions of this Court, wherein, interim custody of the vehicles
seized under the NDPS Act came to be granted under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
8. In Bishwajit Dev’s case referred above, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court considered a case, wherein, owner of the vehicle was not arrayed as
an accused and the driver of the vehicle had been examined as witness.
Even according to the prosecution, the alleged possession and
transportation of contraband was made only against a third person /
accused, who had taken a lift in the vehicle from Manipur.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
issue of pre-trial disposal of the vehicle under Section 52A of NDPS Act
35/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
or the applicability of NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal)
Rules, 2022 or the decision in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another
reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 was not considered. He would further
submit that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mohanlal‘s case above referred, the Central Government has framed the
Rules 2022, which provides specific mechanism for disposal of seized
properties including the conveyances.
10. It is pertinent to note that recognizing the challenges posed by
the storage and accumulation of large quantities of seized drugs, 1989
Amendment Act introduced Section 52A which empowered an authorized
officer to order the pre-trial disposal of contraband, provided that specific
safeguards were in place. Section 52A was further amended in the year
2014 to expand its scope to include conveyance i.e., vehicles used for
transporting drugs. As already pointed out, the Rules 2022 came to be
introduced in pursuance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mohanlal‘s case for ensuring uniformity and procedural safeguards in the
disposal process.
36/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
11. Now turning to Section 497 B.N.S.S. which replaces Section
451 Cr.P.C. introduced time bound mechanism for disposal of seized
property including vehicles applicable to the general offences. Though
Section 497 B.N.S.S. provides a general framework, Section 52A of NDPS
Act r/w 2022 Rules can only be considered as a special law that prevails
over the general law by virtue of Section 5 Cr.P.C. and Section 51 of
NDPS Act.
12. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the Drug Disposal Committee is the competent authority for
deciding the disposal of the property, and pre-trial disposal is not only
permitted but also prioritized. Granting interim custody of the vehicles
under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section
497 of the B.N.S.S. would undermine the legislative intent behind the
NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that granting interim custody under Section 497 of the B.N.S.S. is
not warranted.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that even assuming that the Drug Disposal Committee is the competent
37/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
authority for deciding their applications for return of the vehicles, the
Drug Disposal Committee is not conferred with any powers for granting
interim custody and that therefore, in the absence of any bar under the
NDPS Act, the Courts are having every power and jurisdiction to grant
interim custody.
14. When the very same plea was raised in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.646 of
2024 batch, this Court has held that the Drug Disposal Committee is
having necessary powers to consider the interim custody of the property
including the vehicles and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“25. As already pointed out, in Tarsem Singh‘s case
above referred, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
specifically observed that in view of the provision of Section
63 of NDPS Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. will
stand modified to the extent and any claimant to the property
has to satisfy in terms of the exceptions carved out in
Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS Act.
26. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in
Shajahan Vs. Inspector of Excise and others reported in 2019
SCC OnLine Ker 3685, when a reference was made by
relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in38/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchMohanlal‘s case above referred, has held that the power of
the Magistrate to consider a claim under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
stands denuded and thereby answered reference. When
another Division Bench of Kerala High Court, considering
the decision in Shajahan‘s case, has expressed his opinion
that the issue needs a re-look, the matter was referred to Full
Bench of Kerala High Court. In Pradeep, B. Vs. The District
Drug Disposal Committee, Kasargod and others in W.A.No.
1304 of 2022 dated 19.02.2024, the Full Bench, by observing
that there is no provision in the Act enabling the Drug
Disposal Committee to order interim release of the
vehicle/conveyance, has held that the jurisdictional Special
Court under NDPS Act has the power to consider the grant of
interim custody of vehicles seized under NDPS Act, by
invoking the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent
to note that the Full Bench has mainly observed that there is
no provision in the Act or in the Rules giving power or
jurisdiction to the Drug Disposal Committee to decide about
the granting of interim custody of vehicles seized under
NDPS Act.
27. With great respect to the Full Bench of Kerala High
Court, when Drug Disposal Committee is conferred with
powers to decide about the final disposal of the property
including the vehicles itself, the contention that the Drug
Disposal Committee has no power to grant interim custody,
has no legs to stand.
39/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
28. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savitri Vs. Govind Singh
Rawat reported in 1985 4 SCC 337, wherein, though there is
no express provision in the Code which authorises a
Magistrate to make an interim order directing payment of
maintenance pending disposal of an application for
maintenance, has held that in the absence of any express
prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in
Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate
to direct the person against whom an application is made
under Section 125 of the Code to pay interim maintenance
and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
“23. …
“It is true that there is no express provision in the
Code which authorises a magistrate to make an interim
order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal
of an application for maintenance. The Code does not also
expressly prohibit the making of such an order. The
question is whether such a power can be implied to be
vested in a magistrate having regard to the nature of the
proceedings under Section 125 and other cognate
provisions found in Chapter IX of the Code which is
entitled “Order For Maintenance of Wives, Children and
Parents”….”
24. ….
40/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch“In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the court to
interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such
a way that the construction placed on them would not
defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of
any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the
provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power
on the magistrate to direct the person against whom an
application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay
some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the
applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is
quite common that applications made under Section 125 of
the Code also take several months for being disposed of
finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings
under Section 125, the applicant should be alive till the
date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a
large number of cases only if an order for payment of
interim maintenance is passed by the court. Every court
must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all
such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective.
This principle is embodied in the maxim ubi aliquid
conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non
potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also
anything without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide
Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P.
1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law
and it is found impossible to do that thing unless41/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchsomething not authorised in express terms be also done
then that something else will be supplied by necessary
intendment. Such a construction though it may not always
be admissible in the present case however would advance
the object of the legislation under consideration. A
contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the
applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final
order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension
that the recognition of such implied power would lead to
the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases
where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is
quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few
cases but the prejudice caused thereby to the person
against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right
quickly after hearing both the parties….”
29. Subsequently, in Shail Kumari Devi and another
Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak reported
in AIR 2008 SC 3006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by
referring to the Savitri‘s case above referred, has observed as
follows:-
“21. So far as `interim’ maintenance is concerned, it
is true that Section 125 of the Code as it originally enacted
did not expressly empower the Magistrate to make such
order and direct payment of interim maintenance. But the
Code equally did not prohibit the Magistrate from making
such order. Now, having regard to the nature of42/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batchproceedings, the primary object to secure relief to deserted
and destitute wives, discarded and neglected children and
disabled and helpless parents and to ensure that no wife,
child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap-
heap of society so as to be tempted to commit crime or to
tempt others to commit crime in regard to them, it was held
that the Magistrate had `implied power’ to make such
order. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Chapter IX
(Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) is
not strictly criminal in nature. Moreover, the remedy
provided by Section 125 of the Code is a summary remedy
for securing reasonable sum by way of maintenance
subject to a decree passed by a competent civil Court.
Hence, in absence of any express bar or prohibition,
Section 125 could be interpreted as conferring power by
necessary implication to make interim order of
maintenance subject to final outcome in the application.”
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhwant Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (7) SCC 559 has
held that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in
the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending
final disposal of the bail application and of course, it is in
the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or
not but the power is certainly there.
31. Considering the above decisions, the legal position
is very much clear that when a Court or an Authority is
43/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
having power or jurisdiction to decide petition or case
finally, then that Court or Authority must be deemed to have
a power or jurisdiction to grant interim orders.
32. Now coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute
that after the amendments and introduction of 2022 Rules,
Drug Disposal Committee alone is having power and
jurisdiction to decide about the disposal of the property and
if that be so, Drug Disposal committee must be deemed to
have necessary power and jurisdiction to consider the prayer
for interim custody of the property including the vehicles. In
case, if there is any delay in passing final orders with regard
to disposal of the property, in view of the legal position above
referred and taking note of the amendments to the provisions
of NDPS Act, the power of the jurisdictional Magistrate or
the Special Court under NDPS Act to grant interim custody
of the conveyances under NDPS Act is impliedly barred…”
15. After reserving for orders, I have come to know that the
Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a standard operating procedure for
disposal of seized conveyances under the NDPS Act along with necessary
forms in tune with Rules 2022.
16. In view of the above, and taking note of the legal position
44/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
referred above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned
orders rejecting the claims for interim custody are legal and the same
cannot be found fault with.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1130 of 2024
17. The prosecution has moved a petition seeking orders for
handing over the vehicle seized in Crime No.330 of 2024 before the Drug
Disposal Committee and the learned Magistrate, relying on the decision of
this Court in Nahoorkani Vs. State represented by the Inspector of
Police, Puliyangudi Police Station in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.41 of 2019 dated
16.06.2023, allowed the petition and thereby permitting the prosecution to
produce the vehicle before the Drug Disposal Committee. No doubt, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Magistrate has observed that since confiscation power is vested
with the Drug Disposal Committee, the same has to be handed over before
the said committee. As already decided, the Drug Disposal Committee is
having power and jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to the disposal of
the property including the conveyance and as such, the impugned order
permitting to hand over the vehicle before the Drug Disposal Committee
45/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
cannot be found fault with, but at the same time, the petitioner is at liberty
to move before the Drug Disposal Committee.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.512 of 2025
18. The petitioner moved a petition for returning of the vehicle
seized in Crime No.111 of 2021, which came to be received in P.R.No.482
of 2022. It is evident from the records that the main case itself was taken
on file in S.T.C.No.197 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on
admission vide judgment dated 08.02.2023. It is pertinent to mention that
the learned Magistrate in the judgment passed a property order to destroy
the item Nos.2 and 3 but return the item No.1 of the property. It is evident
that the petitioner has then moved a petition for returning of the vehicle
but the learned Magistrate has proceeded to grant interim custody by
imposing conditions, which is now under challenge.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that since the case itself was disposed of, the learned Magistrate, without
ordering for returning of the vehicle, has only granted interim custody and
that too by imposing onerous conditions. No doubt, as rightly pointed out
46/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate
has directed the petitioner to execute a bond for for Rs.80,000/- with two
sureties for a like sum and also to file an affidavit that she will produce the
vehicle as and when required by the Court. As already pointed out by this
Court, whether the interim or final, the Drug Disposal Committee alone is
empowered to pass orders with regard to the case properties. Hence, the
petitioner is at liberty to move the Drug Disposal Committee seeking final
orders regarding the vehicle.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.536 of 2025
20. The learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.4011 of 2024 has
granted interim custody of the vehicle remanded in R.P.No.224 of 2024 by
imposing conditions, which includes that the petitioner shall not alienate,
sell, lease or encumber the vehicle in whatsoever manner until further
order, which is now under challenge. Since the Drug Disposal Committee
is the competent authority to decide the final disposal of the properties, the
petitioner is at liberty to move a representation before the said Committee
seeking final orders regarding the vehicle. But, as rightly contended by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
47/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
sell or alienate or encumber the vehicle till the decision taken by the Drug
Disposal Committee.
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1195 of 2024, 1291 of 2024 and 201 of 2025
21. Apart from vehicles, cell phones have also been seized and the
application for returning the same came to be dismissed. In Crl.R.C.
(MD)No.201 of 2025, the learned Magistrate has granted interim custody
of the vehicle, but dismissed the petition with regard to the cell phone. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that they are not
having objections for returning the cell phones. Considering the above,
this Court is inclined to return the cell phone to the petitioners by
imposing certain conditions.
22. In the result,
(1) The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.1195 of 2024,
1291 of 2024 and 201 of 2025 stand allowed with regard to the cell phone
and I Phone 13 (Apple 128 GB – BLUE IMEI No.355178631539140) in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1195 of 2024, Apple iPhone 14 in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1291
of 2024 and VIVO V-30 mobile in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.201 of 2025, are
48/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
ordered to be returned to the respective petitioner for interim custody on
the following conditions:-
1. the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1195 of 2025 shall execute
a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the
Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases,
Madurai; the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1291 of 2024
shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the
satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai; and
the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.201 of 2025 shall execute a
bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand
only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the
Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District;
2. the petitioners shall not alienate the case property till the
adjudication/trial is completed; and
3. the petitioners shall produce the case property before the
Court below as and when required.
(2) The Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.512 of 2025 is
dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the
Drug Disposal Committee seeking final orders regarding the vehicle.
49/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Upon receiving such representation, the Drug Disposal Committee shall
consider it on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks. In the
meantime, if required, the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 65,000/-
(Rupees Sixty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum and
file an affidavit before the concerned Court, undertaking not to sell,
alienate, or encumber the vehicle until the representation is decided by the
Drug Disposal Committee.
(3) The Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.536 of 2025 is
dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the
Drug Disposal Committee seeking final orders regarding the vehicle.
Upon receiving such representation, the Drug Disposal Committee shall
consider it on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks. The
petitioner may, if required, comply with conditions (i) and (iii) imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge and file an affidavit undertaking not to sell,
alienate, or encumber the vehicle until the representation isdecided by the
Drug Disposal Committee.
(4) The Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023,
1004, 1117, 1130, 1234, 1301, 1365 of 2024, and 150, 171, 176, 196, 219,
50/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394, 439, 467, 504, and 518 of 2025 are
dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to submit representations to the
Drug Disposal Committee, which shall consider them on merits and in
accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of
representation. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is hereby closed.
04.08.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Ambasamudram.
3.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Special Court for E.C & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.
4.The Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai.
5.The Additional District Judge / Special Officer,
Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.
6.The Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.
7.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Madurai.
8.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kovilpatti.
9.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Thoothukudi.
10.The Station House Officer,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
51/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Tirunelveli District.
11.Narcotics Control Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt of India, Madurai.
12.The Inspector of Police,
Vickramasingapuram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
13.The Inspector of Police,
Othakadai Police Station,
Madurai District.
14.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Karur Police Station,
Karur District.
15.The Inspector of Police,
PEW-Madurai City,
Madurai District.
16.The Inspector of Police,
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
17.The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
18.The Inspector of Police,
Kodavasal Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
19.The Inspector of Police,
Sempatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
20.The Station House Officer (SHO),
Usilampatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
21.The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur West Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
22.The Inspector of Police,
Colachel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
23.The Inspector of Police,
52/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
Jaihindpuram Police Station,
Madurai City.
24.The Station House Officer,
Perungudi Police Station,
Madurai District.
25.The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
26.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Alangudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
27.The Inspector of Police,
Thuckalay Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
28.The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
29.The Inspector of Police,
P.E.W. Kovilpatti Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
30.The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
31.The Inspector of Police,
Naducavery Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
32.The Inspector of Police,
Chinnalapatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
33.The Inspector of Police,
Sawyerpuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
34.The Inspector of Police,
Thuvarankurichi Police Station,
Trichy District.
35.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
53/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.212 of 2023 etc. batch
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Common Order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.212 of 2023, 1004, 1117, 1130, 1195,
1234, 1291, 1301, 1365 of 2024 and 150, 171, 176,
196, 201, 219, 285, 312, 334, 340, 351, 394,
439, 467, 504, 512, 518 and 536 of 2025
Dated : 04.08.2025
54/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 03:58:35 pm )