The Supreme Court has held that confiscation of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case is a matter for the Court trying the offence under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, and the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) cannot independently confiscate or dispose of such a vehicle without appropriate orders of the Court.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by R Manimaran, whose lorry had been seized in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 66 kg of ganja.
The vehicle was intercepted in connection with the alleged transportation of ganja and three persons travelling in the lorry were arrested. The trial court ultimately acquitted all the accused, citing several serious deficiencies in the prosecution case.
Among the grounds for acquittal were that the arrest memo mentioned a crime number that was generated only after registration of the FIR, absence of a police station register showing when the contraband was placed in safe custody, unexplained movement of the lorry during COVID-19 transport restrictions and delay in forwarding samples to the Court and laboratory.
The Trial Court had also directed that the lorry be released to its owner after expiry of the appeal period.
However, when the owner subsequently sought release of the vehicle, the Trial Court rejected the application. The Madras High Court upheld that decision, taking the view that release/disposal of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case had to proceed through the Drug Disposal Committee under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules.
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, and held that the view taken by the Madras High Court in Nahoorkani v. State was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Court explained that under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the Court has to decide whether a seized article is liable to confiscation after the conclusion of the criminal trial, irrespective of whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged.
The Bench further clarified that criminal proceedings and confiscation proceedings are distinct. An acquittal does not automatically mean that a vehicle must always be released, since the two proceedings involve different standards of proof—proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case and preponderance of probabilities in confiscation proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that Section 63(1) specifically confers the power of confiscation on the Court, while Section 60 makes a conveyance used for carrying the offending substance liable to confiscation, subject to statutory exceptions.
Importantly, the Court held that the 2022 NDPS Rules concerning disposal of seized conveyances must operate with the permission of the Court. The DDC cannot independently proceed against a vehicle and dispose of it by sale or auction in a manner that bypasses the Court's statutory power of confiscation.
The Court also reiterated that Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, or their analogous provisions under the BNSS, can be invoked for return of a seized vehicle even in NDPS cases.
The Bench observed that keeping vehicles in police or court custody for long periods could cause them to deteriorate and become unusable.
At the same time, where no one seeks custody of the vehicle, the Investigating Officer may approach the Court for its disposal through the DDC. But before such a reference is made, the owner must be given notice and an opportunity of hearing. The owner must also be heard by the DDC before any auction takes place.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the acquittal was based on serious deficiencies that cast doubt on the prosecution case.
The Court noted additional inconsistencies concerning the seizure mahazar, the alleged place of weighment, absence of the interception information in the General Diary, the consent letter for search, the exact spot of recovery and the failure to conduct sampling in the presence of a Magistrate.
The Bench observed that these circumstances, when considered alongside the grounds of acquittal, made the very interception suspect.
Since all the accused had been acquitted and the prosecution case had not been established, the Court held that the vehicle should be released to the owner.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's order and directed release of the vehicle bearing registration number TN-57-AQ2165 to R Manimaran. If the vehicle had already been transmitted to the DDC, the DDC was directed to release it forthwith.
Case: R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 INSC 946
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: August 24, 2026.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. M. Rashik Hameed Mukilan, Adv. Ms. Vanya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anoopa Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. C. Chinnappa, Adv. Mr. Abhisar Thakral, Adv. Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Adv. Mr. Akash Verma, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy