Acquittal Alone Does Not Compel Vehicle Release in NDPS Cases, But DDC Cannot Confiscate Without Court Order

A Supreme Court bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that only a trial court, not the Drug Disposal Committee, holds the power to confiscate vehicles seized under the NDPS Act, and set aside orders denying release of a lorry whose occupants were acquitted.

The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between confiscation proceedings and criminal proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ruling that the Drug Disposal Committee has no independent authority to dispose of a seized vehicle without prior court permission. The judgment, delivered on 24 August 2026 in R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 946), arose from the refusal to return a lorry even after all accused persons were acquitted of NDPS charges. The Court directed immediate release of the vehicle to its owner, setting aside both the High Court of Madras and the Trial Court orders that had blocked that release. Critically, the bench also overruled the approach taken by the Madras High Court in Nahoorkani v. State, holding it to be contrary to the Supreme Court's own earlier ruling in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam.

From Interception to Acquittal: How the Dispute Arose

On 4 May 2021, a lorry bearing registration number TN-57-AQ-2165 was intercepted. Investigating officers alleged recovery of 66 kg of ganja from the vehicle. Three persons travelling in the lorry were booked as accused (A1 to A3) under the NDPS Act; a fourth person who fled was later arrested and arrayed as A4. The lorry, manufactured by Ashok Leyland, was seized along with the persons.

The trial proceeded before the II Additional District Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai. The prosecution examined eight witnesses (PW1 to PW8), marked thirteen documents (Ex.P1 to P13), and produced eight material objects (MO1 to MO8). The defence marked three documents (Ex.D1 to D3).

The Trial Court acquitted all four accused on four independent grounds: first, the arrest memo prepared at 8 PM on 4 May 2021 showed a crime number that was only generated when the FIR was registered on 5 May 2021; second, no register was maintained at the police station recording the date and time of keeping the contraband in safe custody; third, official witnesses could not explain how the lorry was allowed to ply when transport was restricted owing to the pandemic; and fourth, there was an unexplained delay in sending samples from the court to the forensic laboratory. The Trial Court found the prosecution had not proved the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and also directed release of the lorry to its owner once the appeal period expired.

No appeal against the acquittal was filed within time. Well after the appeal period elapsed, the owner — R Manimaran, the appellant — moved the Trial Court for return of his vehicle. The Trial Court rejected that application. The Investigating Officer had separately moved the Trial Court on 18 October 2023 seeking permission to refer the vehicle to the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC). The High Court of Madras affirmed the Trial Court's refusal, holding that any release of a vehicle in an NDPS case must go through the DDC under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

The Madras High Court's Position and Its Conflict with Biswajit Dey

The High Court relied on its own earlier judgment in Nahoorkani v. State (Crl.RC(MD) No.41 of 2017, dated 16 June 2023). That decision held that Section 63 of the NDPS Act, which governs confiscation, must be proceeded with during the trial and not after it. Nahoorkani further held that the State's right to confiscate conveyances and articles seized under the NDPS Act is irrespective of the outcome of the trial. On that reading, Section 63 modifies Sections 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and any claimant to seized property in an NDPS case must satisfy the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Act. The High Court therefore concluded that a trial court has no residual jurisdiction to deal with a seized conveyance under NDPS, and that the vehicle must go through the DDC.

The Supreme Court found this position directly contrary to its own ruling in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, reported at (2025) 3 SCC 241. In Biswajit Dey, the Court had held that a vehicle in which contraband is allegedly carried can be confiscated by the trial court only on conclusion of trial — whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged. The Court had also held in that case that before any confiscation order is passed, the owner must be given an opportunity of hearing, and that there can be no confiscation if the owner proves the vehicle was used without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken.

Biswajit Dey had also set out four factual scenarios: the owner personally in possession of the vehicle and drugs; the owner's driver or cleaner (agents) in possession; the vehicle having been stolen; and a third party found in possession. The Court noted there that in the first two scenarios, the owner or agent would typically be arrayed as an accused; in the last two, they would not. For interim custody purposes, release may not be appropriate in the first two scenarios but could be ordered in the last two. The present bench clarified, however, that this declaration in Biswajit Dey applied only to interim custody, not to final release.

Section 63, the DDC, and the Limits of the 2022 Rules

The Supreme Court read Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act carefully. That provision states that after the conclusion of trial, whether the accused is convicted, acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any seized article is liable to confiscation under Sections 60, 61 or 62, and if so liable, may pass an order of confiscation. Section 60 expressly makes liable to confiscation the conveyance in which an offensive substance is carried. Section 63(3) provides an exception: no confiscation if the owner proves the vehicle was used without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken.

The Court observed that Section 63(1) specifically confers the power of confiscation on the Magistrate trying the offence, not on the DDC. It then examined Rule 16 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which states that narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances shall, as soon as practicable after seizure, be disposed of in the manner determined under Section 52A of the Act. The Court acknowledged that a conveyance can be disposed of under the 2022 Rules, but reasoned that because confiscation power rests with the court, the DDC cannot independently proceed against the vehicle and dispose of it by sale or auction pending criminal proceedings without proper court orders.

The bench held that there is no specific bar in the NDPS Act against the court invoking its general powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC (or the analogous provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) for return of a seized vehicle pending final decision. To preserve the statutory power conferred by Section 63(1) and to harmonise the 2022 Rules with the parent statute, the Court held that “the rules can be made applicable only with the permission of the Court.”

The Court also observed that a vehicle kept in police or court custody during a prolonged trial may deteriorate and become unusable. Where no one seeks interim custody of the vehicle, the investigating officer may move the court for reference to the DDC — but only after notice to the owner and an opportunity of hearing. Even then, the DDC must hear the owner before any sale in public auction. Amounts received on such a sale must be deposited before the jurisdictional court, since the disposal procedure does not itself constitute confiscation; confiscation remains the court's exclusive statutory power.

Why the Vehicle Must Be Released in This Case

The Court found that the Trial Court's direction to release the vehicle to its owner after the acquittal was correct in law. The Trial Court had exercised its power under Section 63(1). The appellant, as owner, had merely applied for release of a vehicle that had already been ordered returned to him.

The bench also examined the factual record and found compelling reasons to concur with the acquittal and the direction for release. Beyond the four primary acquittal grounds, the Court noted several other irregularities in the prosecution case: the seizure mahazar did not indicate the name of the road on which the interception occurred; the weighment was said to have been done at a nearby supermarket but was not proved by cogent evidence; the information that led to interception was not recorded in the General Diary; the consent letter for search did not refer to the vehicle; the exact spot of recovery of contraband was not mentioned; and sampling was not done in the presence of a Magistrate.

The bench held that these circumstances, taken alongside the four grounds that led to acquittal, made the very interception suspect. “The said grounds juxtaposed with the grounds relied on by the Trial Court to acquit the accused… makes the very interception suspect.” Given the acquittal of all accused and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the booking of the case, the Court said it was persuaded to order release of the vehicle.

The Court held that after the judgment in the criminal case, on an application by the owner, the court needed only to verify the owner's credentials, and that denying release when release had already been ordered by the Trial Court was unjustified.

Order

The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court of Madras's impugned judgment and the order of the Trial Court that had rejected release of the vehicle. It directed that the lorry bearing registration number TN-57-AQ-2165, involved in CC No.75 of 2021 before the II Additional District Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, shall be released forthwith to R Manimaran. If the Additional District and Sessions Court had already transmitted the vehicle to the DDC, the DDC was directed to release it forthwith to the appellant. The criminal appeal was allowed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.