Supreme Court: Trial Court's Order Required Before Drug Disposal Committee Can Dispose Of Seized Vehicle

The core issue is whether the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) can dispose of the vehicle without a specific order from the Trial Court, and whether the vehicle should be returned to the owner given the acquittal.

Who it concerns: Appellant: R Manimaran (owner of the vehicle); Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu; Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal.
• Set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the release of the vehicle.
• Set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madras.
• Ordered the release of the vehicle (TN-57-AQ-2165) to the Appellant.
• Directed that if the vehicle was transmitted to the DDC, it must be released forthwith to the Appellant.
• Held that the DDC cannot independently dispose of a seized vehicle pending criminal proceedings without proper orders from the Court.
• Clarified that the power to confiscate lies with the Court under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, not the DDC.
• Disposed of any pending applications.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the Trial Judge's acquittal was based on serious procedural irregularities, such as the arrest memo showing a crime number generated after the FIR was registered.
• The Court held that the High Court's view in 'Nahoorkani v. State' runs counter to the Supreme Court's view in 'Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam'.
• The Court emphasized that the standard of proof for confiscation (preponderance of probabilities) is distinct from criminal proceedings (proof beyond reasonable doubt).
• The Court stated that if no one seeks custody of the vehicle, the Investigating Officer may move the Court to refer it to the DDC, but only after giving the owner notice and an opportunity of hearing.