logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 236 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 9064 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
Parties : Seeni Haja Mohammed Versus State Represented Through The Inspector of Police & Another\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ---- For the Respondents: -----
Date of Judgment : 10-02-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 451 and 457  -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022
- NDPS Act
- Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]

2. Catch Words:
- interim custody
- release of seized conveyance
- jurisdiction
- ultra vires
- natural justice

3. Summary:
The Court noted that the seized vehicle had already been released pursuant to its earlier order, leaving no matter for further consideration. Counsel raised concerns about the State’s exercise of powers under the 2022 NDPS Rules, but the Court relied on its earlier decision in *Denash vs. The State of Tamil Nadu* (2025 INSC 1258). That judgment held that the Rules cannot override the substantive rights under the NDPS Act and that Special Courts retain jurisdiction to entertain applications for interim custody or release under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC. The Court rejected the argument that the Rules are ultra‑vires and divest the Special Court of its powers. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of without granting any relief.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr. A. Velan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.R. Elango, learned senior advocate for the respondent. We are informed that vehicle seized has already been released pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2025. In this view or the mater nothing remains for our consideration.

3. Mr. Velan, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner expressed certain concerns about the legality and propriety of the State Government exercising powers under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. We were inclined to consider the questions of law raised by Mr. Velan. However, in a recent decision of this Court in Denash vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; reported in 2025 INSC 1258, the concerns of the Ld. Counsel were considered and answered in detail. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:

                   27. On the contrary, the Rules of 2022 restrict the mode of disposal of a seized conveyance to "tender or auction", as may be determined by the Drug Disposal Committee. However, this restrictive procedural framework must necessarily be read in harmony with the parent statute. The Rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or curtail the substantive rights and procedural safeguards envisaged under the parent legislation that is the NDPS Act. In Bishwajit Dey (supra), this Court observed that the provisions of the NDPS Act do not bar the concerned Court from exercising its discretion, to release the vehicle in interim custody. While the Act provides for confiscation in appropriate cases, it does not preclude the Court from granting interim release of the vehicle where the circumstances so warrant. The exercise of such judicial discretion is to be guided by the facts and circumstances of each case and should be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the rights of a bona fide owner at the same time balancing the need for detention of the vehicle/conveyance in appropriate cases.

                   29. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules. Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences by depriving a bona fide owner of his property without judicial scrutiny or an opportunity of hearing, an outcome wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the NDPS Act and contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.

                   30. Hence, we are of the considered view that the interpretation given by the High Court, holding that pursuant to the promulgation of the Rules of 2022, all other forums, including the Special Court, are divested of the jurisdiction to decide the fate of a seized conveyance under the NDPS Act and that the aggrieved person must necessarily approach the Drug Disposal Committee, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. (emphasis supplied)

4. We are of the opinion that this Court has in clear terms held that the powers of the Court under Section 451 and 457 of CrPC [Section 497 and 503 of BNSS] continue to subsist. There is no doubt about the fact that the Special Court would exercise the power when its jurisdiction is invoked by an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS]. Mr Velan would also submit that Rules are ultra vires and should therefore be set aside. As such a challenge is not laid before the High Court, the question has not arisen in present proceedings, we are not inclined to accept the said contention.

5. With this clarification, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal