Case at a Glance
A lorry from which 66 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered was seized in Tamil Nadu, but the Special Court at Pudukottai acquitted all the accused on 20 January 2023 and directed release of the lorry to its owner once the appeal period expired. When the owner later applied for release, the trial court refused, and the Madras High Court agreed that release had to go through the Drug Disposal Committee. Following Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court held that Section 63 of the NDPS Act gives the power of confiscation to the court, not the DDC, and directed release of the lorry to the owner.
A lorry was intercepted and 66 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered; three occupants were booked as A1 to A3, a fourth person who fled was later arrested, and the lorry, TN-57-AQ-2165, was seized. On 20 January 2023 the Additional District and Sessions Judge (EC and NDPS Cases), Pudukottai, in CC No. 75 of 2021, acquitted all the accused. The grounds included that the arrest memo timed 8 PM on 4 May 2021 bore a crime number generated only when the FIR was registered on 5 May 2021, the absence of a register recording safe custody of the contraband, the officials’ inability to explain how the lorry plied during pandemic restrictions, and delay in sending samples. The trial court directed release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period.
The owner applied for release long after the appeal period, but the trial court rejected the application. On 18 October 2023 the Investigating Officer applied to refer the vehicle to the Drug Disposal Committee. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that release had to go through the DDC under Section 52A and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, and relying on its earlier decision in Nahoorkani v. State. The owner appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
After an acquittal in an NDPS case, does the power to confiscate or release a seized vehicle lie with the trial court under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, or must the owner go through the Drug Disposal Committee?
Section 63, the 2022 Disposal Rules and the Role of the DDC
The Court held that the Madras High Court’s view in Nahoorkani conflicts with Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, under which a conveyance “can be confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial”, after hearing the owner, who escapes confiscation by proving lack of knowledge or connivance and reasonable precautions. Confiscation and criminal proceedings are distinct; acquittal does not automatically mean release, since confiscation is decided on a preponderance of probabilities. Agreeing fully with Biswajit Dey, the Court noted that Section 63(1) requires the court to decide confiscation whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged, and that the provision “specifically provides for confiscation by the Magistrate and not by the DDC.”
Although Rule 16 of the 2022 Rules allows disposal of conveyances, the Court held that the power to confiscate rests with the court, and the DDC cannot independently sell a vehicle during criminal proceedings without court orders; “there is no specific bar under the NDPS Act that the Court cannot invoke the general power” under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. Vehicles in custody “may deteriorate and become unusable in the long run.” If no one claims custody, the IO may ask the court to refer the vehicle to the DDC, but only after notice and hearing to the owner, and sale proceeds must go to the court, because “the procedure delineated for disposal does not include confiscation.” Here, the release order “cannot be termed to be an error in law or on facts”, and the court hearing the owner’s application “could have just verified the credentials of the owner and not deny release.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, confiscation of a seized conveyance is decided by the court, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged; the DDC has no power to confiscate.
- Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam was followed, and the contrary Madras High Court view in Nahoorkani was not.
- The DDC may dispose of an unclaimed vehicle only with the court’s permission, after notice and hearing to the owner, with sale proceeds deposited in court.
- The trial court’s rejection and the High Court’s judgment were set aside, and lorry TN-57-AQ-2165 was ordered released to the appellant, including by the DDC if it had been sent there.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles that vehicle owners in NDPS cases must be heard by the court before confiscation.
- It prevents vehicles from being sold through the DDC route without judicial oversight.
- It recognises that seized vehicles deteriorate and supports timely release under the CrPC (or BNSS) provisions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Vehicle Owners
- After an acquittal, apply to the trial court for release under Section 63; the DDC route is not the gateway.
- Be ready to show lack of knowledge or connivance and reasonable precautions, if confiscation is sought.
- You are entitled to notice and hearing before any referral of the vehicle to the DDC.
For Counsel
- Rely on Biswajit Dey and this judgment to resist DDC-led disposal without court orders.
- Point out that acquittal grounds (such as defects in arrest memo, custody register and sampling) can support release.
- Remember that confiscation is judged on a preponderance of probabilities, separate from the criminal trial.
Key Takeaways
- Only the court can confiscate a vehicle under Section 63 NDPS Act.
- The DDC acts only with court permission, after hearing the owner.
- Acquittal does not automatically mean release, but here release was justified.
- Sale proceeds of disposed vehicles must be deposited with the court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who decides confiscation of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case?
The Supreme Court held that under Section 63 the trial court decides confiscation, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged, after hearing the owner; the Drug Disposal Committee does not.
Does acquittal automatically mean the vehicle must be released?
No. The Court said confiscation and criminal proceedings are distinct and confiscation uses a preponderance-of-probabilities standard, but in this case the release order was not an error in law or on facts.
Can the DDC auction a seized vehicle?
Only if no one claims custody and the court, after giving the owner notice and hearing, refers it to the DDC; the DDC must also hear the owner before any public auction, and sale proceeds must be deposited with the court.
Conclusion
R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu keeps the fate of seized vehicles in judicial hands: the Drug Disposal Committee disposes, but only the court confiscates.
Practical takeaway: Owners of vehicles seized in NDPS cases should move the trial court under Section 63 promptly, and resist any DDC disposal that bypasses notice and a court order.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com