R Manimaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Court
Supreme Court

2026 INSC 946
Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
[ @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18633 of 2025 ]


R Manimaran … Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu … Respondent (s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.
2. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the High
Court confirmed the order of the Additional District &
Sessions Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai,
rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle involved in the
NDPS case.
3. The vehicle was intercepted and on alleged recovery
of contraband; 66 kg of ganja, three persons travelling in the
lorry were booked, charging them under the provisions of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.02
18:47:20 IST
Reason:
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). The vehicle, a lorry
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 1 of 12

manufactured by Ashok Leyland was also seized. The
persons detained on recovery of contraband was arrayed as
A1 to A3, while one another who fled, was arrested and
arrayed as A4.
4. The trial saw PW1 to PW8 being examined, marking
Ex.P1 to P13 and producing MO1 to MO8 on the side of the
prosecution. The accused marked three documents as
Exs.D1 to D3. The trial concluded with a judgment acquitting
the accused on four grounds; (i) the arrest memo at 8 PM on
04.05.2021 showed the crime number, which was generated
on the registration of the FIR on 05.05.2021; (ii) there was no
register maintained in the Police Station recording the date
and time of keeping the contraband in safe custody; (iii) that
the official witnesses were unable to explain as to how the
lorry was allowed to ply especially when transport was
restricted due to the pandemic and (iv) the delay in sending
the samples to the Court and from there to the Laboratory.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the
complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
Additional District and Sessions Judge also directed the
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 2 of 12

release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period is
over.
5. It was long after the period of appeal was over, the
appellant herein moved the Trial Court for release of his
vehicle, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The High
Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court, finding that the
release of a vehicle detained in a NDPS case has to be
through a process involving Drug Disposal Committee
(DDC) under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, Standing Orders
and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal)
Rules, 2022. The Investigating Officer (IO) had moved the
Trial Court to refer the matter to the DDC and hence the
owner will have to approach the DDC was the finding.
6. The High Court noticed the decision of that High Court
1
itself in Nahoorkani v. State , which held that the provisions
under Section 63 of the NDPS Act has to be proceeded with
during the trial and not after it and the right of the State to
confiscate, the conveyance and articles or things seized
under the NDPS Act, is irrespective of the result of the trial.

1
Crl.RC(MD) No.41 of 2017, dated 16.06.2023
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 3 of 12

Section 63 of the NDPS Act modifies Sections 451 and 452 of
2
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and any claimant to
the property involved in an NDPS case would be obliged to
satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in
Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the NDPS Act. The Court thus does
not have jurisdiction to deal with the conveyance seized
under the NDPS Act was the finding.
7.
There can be no dispute that in the present case no
such confiscation proceedings were initiated in the course of
the trial or immediately after the judgment was delivered on
20.01.2023. An application is said to have been moved by the
I.O before the Trial Court on 18.10.2023 seeking permission
to refer the vehicle to DDC.
8. The view taken by the High Court of Madras in
1
Nahoorkani runs counter to the view of this Court in Biswajit
3
Dey v. State of Assam . On reading the NDPS Act, this Court
was of the view that the vehicle in which the contraband is
alleged to have been found carried, can be confiscated by

2
In short ‘CrPC’
3
(2025) 3 SCC 241
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 4 of 12

the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial, when the
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. It was also
held that, if the view is, of confiscation, then an opportunity of
hearing has to be granted before such order is passed. There
can be no confiscation, if the owner is able to prove that the
vehicle was used without the owner’s knowledge or
connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions
against such use of the vehicle by the accused persons.
9. Therein the learned judges also contemplated four
scenarios in which contraband is seized from a vehicle. The
first of which was the owner itself being in possession of the
vehicle and the drugs; then, the owner’s driver or cleaner,
thus his agents being in possession; third, if the vehicle had
been stolen and; last, when a third party in the vehicle is
found in possession. It was held that in the first two scenarios,
the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily
be arrayed as an accused and in the third and fourth scenario,
the owner of the vehicle and his agent would not be arrayed
as an accused. It was also held that, in the first two scenarios,
it may not be proper for the Court to release the vehicle on
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 5 of 12

interim custody, while in the last two scenarios, it could be
done. We have to immediately notice that the said
declaration applied only to interim custody and not to the
final release of the vehicle.
10. Admittedly, the confiscation proceedings under the
NDPS Act and the criminal proceedings initiated are distinct
proceedings. The result in one, not regulating the other. An
order of acquittal does not necessarily mean that the vehicle
too has to be released, since the standard of proof in the two
proceedings are quite distinct and different; in confiscation,
preponderance of probabilities and in the criminal
proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
11. We are in full agreement with the view taken in
2
Biswajit Dey since sub-section (1) of Section 63 provides
that whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or
discharged, the Court shall decide whether any article or
thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation under
Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and that if it decides
that the article is so liable, order of confiscation may be
passed. Section 60 makes liable, inter alia the conveyance; in
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 6 of 12

which the offensive substance is carried, to confiscation. Sub-
section (3) provides an exception insofar as the owner
proving the use; without his knowledge and connivance and
he having made reasonable precautions against such use. In
fact, the statute by Section 63(1), specifically provides for
confiscation by the Magistrate and not by the DDC. We have
also looked at the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and
Disposal) Rules, 2022, which prescribes the manner in which
the seized contraband is to be classified, weighed and
stored. It also prescribes the manner in which sampling has
to be done in the presence of a Magistrate and speaks of
disposal too. Rule 16 specifically reads so:
“16. Items that can be disposed of. - Having
regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to
theft, substitution and constraints of proper
storage space, all narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances, controlled substances and
conveyances, as soon as may be after their
seizure, shall be disposed of in the manner
determined under Section 52A of the Act.”

12. We observe that a conveyance also can be disposed
of under the Rules of 2022, but the power to confiscate being
with the Court, it would not be proper for the DDC to
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 7 of 12

independently proceed against the vehicle and dispose of
that by sale or otherwise in auction, pending the criminal
proceedings, without proper orders from the Court. As has
2
been held in Biswajit Dey , there is no specific bar under the
NDPS Act that the Court cannot invoke the general power
under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC for return of the
seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case.
Hence to preserve the statutory power, as conferred by
Section 63(1) on the Court, trying the offence under the NDPS
Act and to harmonize the Rules with the statute, it has to be
held that the rules can be made applicable only with the
permission of the Court.
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.
2
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.
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 8 of 12

14. However, if none appears to seek custody of the
vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O may
move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for
interim custody, to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that
circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the
owner of the vehicle and afford an opportunity of hearing
before such reference is made. Even if the reference is made
after giving an opportunity for hearing, the DDC also has to
hear the owner before the asset, in the form of a vehicle, is
sold in public auction. On such sale being carried out, the
amount received shall be deposited before the Jurisdictional
Court, since the procedure delineated for disposal does not
include confiscation. Statutorily the power of confiscation is
on the Court, trying the offence.
15. In the present case we should observe that the Trial
Judge directed the release of the vehicle, which cannot be
termed to be an error in law or on facts. There are certain
compelling circumstances in the present case, which
persuade us to concur with the Trial Court. As we noticed,
there were four grounds on which the acquittal was entered,
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 9 of 12

which are quite serious and puts the prosecution in peril.
Moreover, there are other inconsistencies, which the learned
Trial Judge found to be not serious enough to disbelieve the
testimonies and vitiate the prosecution on the ground of a
faulty investigation. The said contentions were of the seizure
mahazar not indicating the name of the road on which the
interception was made, the weighment said to have been
carried out in a nearby Super Market not having been proved
by cogent evidence, the information received which led to
the interception of the vehicle not being recorded in the
General Diary, the Consent Letter for search not referring to
the vehicle, the non-mentioning of the exact spot from which
the recovery of the contraband was effected, sampling not
having been done in the presence of the Magistrate and so
on and so forth.
16. The above grounds juxtaposed with the grounds
relied on by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, according
to us, makes the very interception suspect. Considering the
fact that the accused have been acquitted, finding the
prosecution case to be not established and the suspicious
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 10 of 12

circumstances regarding the booking of the case itself, we
are persuaded to release the vehicle to the appellant herein.
The Trial Court exercising the power conferred under
Section 63(1) has ordered release of the vehicle to its owner;
according to us, perfectly justified in the facts of the case. In
the application filed by the owner, after the judgment in the
criminal case, the Court in this case could have just verified
the credentials of the owner and not deny release; which is
already ordered. The order of the Trial Court rejecting
release of the vehicle to the owner is set aside and so is the
impugned judgment of the High Court.
17. The vehicle bearing registration number TN-57-AQ-
2165 involved in CC No.75 of 2021, which ended in an
acquittal of all the accused, by the learned II Additional
District Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai shall be
released to the appellant herein. If at all the Additional
District and Sessions Court has transmitted the vehicle to the
DDC, the vehicle shall be released forthwith by the DDC to
the appellant herein.
18. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 11 of 12

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)


....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 24, 2026.
Crl. A.@ SLP (Crl) No.18633 of 2025 Page 12 of 12