RELEASE AND CONFISCATION OF VEHICLES IN NDPS CASES: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE LAW

INTRODUCTION
In R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP (Crl.) No. 18633 of 2025, the Supreme Court of India, by its Judgment dated 24 August 2026, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarified the law relating to the release and confiscation of vehicles seized in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Judgment deals with the important question of whether a vehicle seized in an NDPS case can be released by the Court, particularly after the accused have been acquitted or whether the owner must necessarily approach the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) for disposal of the vehicle.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The case arose from the seizure of a lorry in which 66 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered. Three persons travelling in the vehicle were arrested and subsequently another person was also arrested. The lorry, manufactured by Ashok Leyland, was seized in connection with the case.
The trial eventually ended in the acquittal of all the Accused. The Trial Court found several serious shortcomings in the Prosecution case. These included the fact that the arrest memo mentioned a crime number even though the FIR was registered on the following day, absence of a police station register showing when the contraband was kept in safe custody, unexplained circumstances regarding the movement of the lorry during COVID-19 restrictions and delay in sending samples for laboratory examination. The Trial Court consequently directed that the lorry be released to its owner after the appeal period.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
Despite the Trial Court’s direction, the vehicle was not released. When the owner subsequently approached the Court, the Trial Court rejected his Application. The High Court also upheld that decision.
The High Court took the view that the vehicle had to be dealt with through the Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with this approach.

CONFISCATION AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT
One of the most important aspects of the Judgment is the distinction between criminal proceedings and confiscation proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the two are separate proceedings and that the result of one does not automatically determine the other. Therefore, an acquittal of the accused does not necessarily mean that the vehicle must also be released.
The reason is that the standard of proof in the two proceedings is different. A criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas confiscation proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

WHO HAS THE POWER TO CONFISCATE THE VEHICLE?
The Court then examined Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act. It held that the power to decide whether a seized article or vehicle is liable to confiscation lies with the Court trying the offence.
Section 60 of the NDPS Act makes a conveyance used for carrying narcotic substances liable to confiscation. However, there is an important protection for the owner. If the owner is able to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken reasonable precautions against such use, the vehicle cannot be confiscated on that basis.

ROLE OF THE DRUG DISPOSAL COMMITTEE
The Supreme Court also considered the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, particularly Rule 16.
The Court accepted that a conveyance can be disposed of under the Rules. However, the DDC cannot independently decide to sell or auction a vehicle when the statutory power of confiscation rests with the Court.
The Rules must therefore be harmonised with the NDPS Act and can operate only with the permission of the Court.

INTERIM RELEASE OF VEHICLES IN NDPS CASES
The Judgment also provides important guidance regarding interim custody of vehicles.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC or the corresponding provisions of the BNSS, can be invoked even in NDPS cases for the return of a seized vehicle.
This is an important practical point. A vehicle may remain in police or court custody for years while the criminal case continues. During this period, the vehicle can deteriorate and may eventually become unusable. The law should not result in unnecessary wastage of a valuable asset.

SAFEGUARDS BEFORE AUCTION OR DISPOSAL
The Court also laid down safeguards for situations where no person comes forward to claim custody of the vehicle.
In such circumstances, the Investigating Officer may approach the Court for reference to the DDC. However, the owner must first be given notice and an opportunity of hearing.
Even if the matter is referred to the DDC, the owner must be heard before the vehicle is sold through public auction. The amount received from such sale must be deposited before the jurisdictional Court.

WHY THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED RELEASE IN THIS CASE
In the present case, the Supreme Court found the Prosecution case particularly doubtful.
Apart from the grounds on which the Accused were acquitted, the Court noted several other inconsistencies concerning the seizure mahazar, weighment of the contraband, recording of information in the General Diary, the consent for search, the exact place of recovery and the manner of sampling.
The Court observed that, when these circumstances were considered together, they made the very interception of the vehicle suspect. Since the Accused had already been acquitted and the Prosecution case had not been established, the Court found sufficient reason to release the vehicle.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Orders refusing release of the vehicle and directed that the lorry be released to its owner. The Criminal Appeal was accordingly allowed.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

EDITOR’S COMMENTS
The Judgment is significant because it brings clarity to the relationship between Section 63 of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules, 2022. While the State can take steps for disposal of seized vehicles, the DDC cannot replace the statutory role of the Court in deciding confiscation.
At the same time, the Judgment recognises a practical concern: keeping a vehicle in custody for an indefinite period can seriously damage the owner’s property. The Court has therefore reaffirmed that the general powers relating to interim custody can be used even in NDPS cases.
For vehicle owners, the decision provides an important legal basis for seeking interim or final release of seized vehicles. At the same time, it makes clear that the question of confiscation must ultimately be decided by the competent Court in accordance with the NDPS Act.

SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate & Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Watch our latest video