Priority must be accorded to pre-trial disposal of seized contraband: HC

The Hindu

11-07-2025

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed investigating officers, prosecuting agencies, and special courts handling Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cases to strictly comply with procedures under the Act and Rules.
Justice B. Pugalendhi directed the procedures under Section 52A of the Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, should be complied with and priority accorded to pre-trial disposal, wherever permissible.
Disposal should be treated as an integral part of case processing, and not as a postscript. Special courts should actively monitor compliance and Drug Disposal Committees should expeditiously process referred properties to prevent administrative delay and loss of evidentiary integrity, the court observed and directed the Home Department and the Registrar General of the Madras HC to issue a comprehensive circular.
The court observed that despite repeated judicial emphasis, particularly by the Supreme Court, the practice of leaving seized vehicles in custody, unattended for years, continued. This undermined the evidentiary chain, invited deterioration of public assets, and burdened the judicial process post-trial.
It said systemic lapses in the disposal of seized conveyances and contraband under the NDPS Act remained a recurring concern. Long-term retention of such properties in godowns or open premises had often led to deterioration, theft or unauthorised usage.
The court was hearing an appeal preferred by R. Manimaran against the judgment of the Additional District Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. The application filed by the appellant seeking release of his vehicle was dismissed. The vehicle was seized in connection with an NDPS case in 2021 and produced as material evidence. The trial culminated in a judgment of acquittal. The appellant had sought return of the vehicle.
The court observed that the appellant's conduct did raise legitimate concerns. During the investigation and the trial, no claim of ownership was made. Even after the vehicle was marked as material evidence and retained in custody, the appellant remained silent. Only after the judgment of acquittal, he sought its release.
Equally glaring was the failure of the investigating officer to initiate pre-trial disposal proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which provided a special mechanism for the disposal of the seized contraband, including vehicles, as soon as possible through certification and referral to the Drug Disposal Committee, the court observed.
The legislative objective behind this was not merely procedural; it stemmed from an operational necessity to prevent overcrowding of judicial or police custody spaces, eliminate risks of pilferage or decay, and reduce the burden on courts to determine ownership post-trial, the court observed.
The petitioner's plea for return of the vehicle under a mere assertion of ownership, without addressing the statutory bar and the procedural mechanism under Section 52A of the Act and Rules, could not be accepted, the court observed. Since the investigating officer had already moved the trial court for permission to refer the vehicle to the Drug Disposal Committee, the court directed the trial court to dispose of the application expeditiously.