Madras High Court
Prasanna vs The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of … on 21 July, 2026
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
Prasanna, S/o. Vijaya Kumar.
No.28/8, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,
D6, Anna Square Police Station,
Chennai. Cr.No.92 of 2025.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- To call for the records pertaining to the order dated 25.11.2025 in
Crl.MP.No.6775 of 2025 in CC.No.1562 of 2025 on the file of the Special
Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act,
Chennai and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Karthikeyan
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, GA (Criminal Side)
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 25.11.2025
in Crl.MP.No.6775 of 2025 in CC.No.1562 of 2025, passed by the Special
Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS
Act, Chennai and pass such further or other orders.
2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the Two
Wheeler, Vespa ZX, bearing Reg.No.TN 01 BT 5254, which was seized by
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
the Respondent Police, in Cr.No.92 of 2025 for the offence under Section
8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(a), 25, 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, the Revision Petitioner had filed
the above petition, seeking release of the said Vehicle, before the Trial Court.
By the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition,
refusing to release the said Vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has
been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard Mr.K.Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) for the Respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision
Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that when the
ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of
the court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the
learned counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle
in question.
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the
date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial
Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will
become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned
counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the
attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is quoted as
under:-
“497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in
certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal
Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as
it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to
speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the
Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary,
order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,” property” includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the
Court or which is in its custody,
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been
committed or which appears to have been used for the commission
of any offence.
(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen
days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section
(1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its
description in such form and manner as the State Government may,
by rules, provide.
(3)The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the
photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any
electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section
(1).
(4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph
or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as
evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
(5)The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days
after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the
photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3),
order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the
property in the manner specified hereinafter.
503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever
the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a
Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is
not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the
Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the
person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be
ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the
property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the
Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate
may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying
the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person
who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his
claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.”
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
Revision Petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions, which the
Court will impose, while releasing the vehicle in question. Indisputably, the
Revision Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle in question and
therefore, the vehicle in question be released in his favour and the impugned
order be quashed by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent submits
that the vehicle in question was involved in the offences under Sections 8(c)
read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(a), 25, 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and hence, the vehicle in question was
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
correctly seized by the Respondent Police. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order
and hence, no interference by this Court is required.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the relevant legal provisions and the judgements
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (supra) and the judgement passed by the High Court in various cases.
10.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR
2003 SC 638 (supra) in para 17 and 21 has been pleased to held as under:-
“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep
such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for
the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the
said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done
pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles.
21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned
Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would
take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451
Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not
kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more
than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if
there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High
Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard
to such articles are implemented properly.”
11.In Nand Vs. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423, the Allahabad High
Court has observed that pendency of the confiscation proceedings under
Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act is not a bar for release of the vehicle which
is required for the trial under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. It has been
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
clearly observed by that Court in para 7, which is being produced as under:-
“I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by
remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of
the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not claim
its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger
interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a
Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and
files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed
by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and
he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck.”
12.The Allahabad High Court further has held in the case of Jai Prakash Vs.
State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 that mere pendency of confiscation
proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle. In
Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (Alld), the
same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court that pendency of
confiscation proceedings shall not operate as bar against the release of
vehicle seized under Section 60 of Excise Act.
13.In the opinion of this Court, the power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is not properly and widely used by
the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order. The power conferred
under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
be exercised by the trial court with judicious mind and without any
unnecessary delay. So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the
article in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not fulfil any
purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of
the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
remaining period for which the property is being made as it is not in dispute
that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the seized Vehicle.
14.Further, in the opinion of this Court, the procedure as contemplated under
Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) be also
followed promptly, so that the concerned Court may take prompt decision for
disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of
the said property, keeping the said property in the custody and keeping the
same in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not solve any
purpose and that gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said
property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural
justice.
15.As per the legal propositions mentioned above and keeping in view the facts
that indisputably the Revision Petitioner is the registered owner of the seized
vehicle and that the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute as neither the
State or any other person has claimed their ownership over the vehicle, no
useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle stationed at the Trial
Court in the open yard for a long period, allowing it to be damaged with the
passage of time.
16.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of
the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court referred
to above, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, it
requires interference by this court.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
17.Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
impugned order dated, 25.11.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.6775 of 2025 in
CC.No.1562 of 2025, by the Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai , is set aside and
reversed.
18.The Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under NDPS Act, Chennai, is directed to release the vehicle in question
forthwith in favour of the Revision Petitioner, on the conditions that the
Revision Petitioner shall give a bank guarantee of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand only) before the said Court and file a bond that he shall be
producing the vehicle in question as and when needed by the concerned court
and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the vehicle in
question.
19.There is no order as to costs. Let the copy of this order be sent to the court
concerned for its compliance and information by the Registry of this Court
within one week from today.
21-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
TO
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
1. The Inspector of Police, D6, Anna Square Police Station,
Chennai.
2. The Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under NDPS Act, Chennai
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 1460 of 2026
21-07-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
