Supreme Court Held That Special Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Interim Release of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court of India while hearing the appeal challenging the rejection of an application for interim custody of a vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), clarifies the jurisdiction of the Special Court.

Case Background: The appellant, Denash, is a lawful owner of a lorry that had been hired to transpor iron sheets. The vehicle was intercepted by police which led to he seizure of 6 kilograms of Ganja (contraband) found concealed beneath the driver’s seat and in the personal possession of the three other accused persons. However, the police has not arraigned the appellant/owner as accused in the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

When the appellant sought the interim release of the vehicle on Supurdagi (handover) under Section 497 BNSS (Section 451 CrPC), his application was initially dismissed by the Special Court which held that a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act was not amenable to interim custody as it was liable for confiscation under Section 63 of the Act.

However, in revision the Madras High Court specifically ruled that following the introduction of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (Rules of 2022), the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) alone possessed the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disposal, including interim release, of seized conveyances.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and emphasized that the Rules of 2022 are subordinate legislation and cannot supersede or override the substantive provisions of the parent legislation, the NDPS Act. A critical finding was that the interpretation adopted by the High Court—that the Rules divested Special Courts of jurisdiction—is legally unsustainable.

The Apex Court highlighted that the authority to determine whether a seized conveyance is liable for final confiscation vests in the Special Court under Sections 60(3) and 63 of the NDPS Act, and not in any administrative or executive body like the DDC. Confiscation, being a measure that deprives an individual of property, must comply with natural justice and requires a prior hearing.

The Apex Court held that Section 60(3) stipulates a crucial safeguard as a conveyance is not liable to confiscation if the owner successfully proves that the unauthorized use occurred without his knowledge or connivance, and that he had taken all reasonable precautions.

Clarifying it further, the Supreme Court held that Sections 36-C and 51 of the NDPS Act make the procedural provisions of the CrPC/BNSS (specifically Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC) applicable to proceedings before the Special Court, meaning the court retains the power to grant interim custody.

Applying the principles established in Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam, the Supreme Court held that where the owner is not arrayed as an accused, and there are no allegations of knowledge or connivance, the vehicle should normally be released on interim custody.

Thus, in the current matter, the fact that the appellant was transporting a valuable consignment and not the contrabands and also for the fact that he is not chargesheeted— the Apex Court held that the appellant's circumstances warranted a pragmatic approach, and ordered the release of the vehicle to the appellant on Supurdagi (handover) subject to the conditions imposed by the Special Court.

CORAM: JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA.