Supreme Court : Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Dispose Of Seized Vehicle U/NDPS Act Without Trial Court's Orders

We are in full agreement with the view taken in Biswajit Dey   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241 since Sub-section (1) of Section 63 provides that whether the Accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any Article or thing seized under this Act is liable to confiscation Under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and that if it decides that the Article is so liable, order of confiscation may be passed. Section 60 makes liable, inter alia the conveyance; in which the offensive substance is carried, to confiscation. Sub-section (3) provides an exception insofar as the owner proving the use; without his knowledge and connivance and he having made reasonable prautions against such use. In fact, the statute by Section 63(1), specifically provides for confiscation by the Magistrate and not by the DDC. We have also looked at the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which prescribes the manner in which the seized contraband is to be classified, weighed and stored. It also prescribes the manner in which sampling has to be done in the presence of a Magistrate and speaks of disposal too. Rule 16 specifically reads so:

16. Items that can be disposed of. - Having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution and constraints of proper storage space, all narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances, as soon as may be after their seizure, shall be disposed of in the manner determined Under Section 52A of the Act. {Para 11}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What procedure the court should follow while deciding application for release of vehicle at interim stage in NDPS offence?

Therein the learned judges also contemplated four scenarios in which contraband is seized from a vehicle. The first of which was the owner itself being in possession of the vehicle and the drugs; then, the owner's driver or cleaner, thus his agents being in possession; third, if the vehicle had been stolen and; last, when a third party in the vehicle is found in possession. It was held that in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an Accused and in the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and his agent would not be arrayed as an Accused. It was also held that, in the first two scenarios, it may not be proper for the Court to release the vehicle on interim custody, while in the last two scenarios, it could be done. We have to immediately notice that the said declaration applied only to interim custody and not to the final release of the vehicle. {Para 9}

13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in the custody of the Police or the Court, during the pendency of the trial, may deteriorate and become unusable in the long run. It is hence the finding of this Court in Biswajit Dey   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241 that the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or the analogous provisions of the BNSS) can be invoked even in NDPS cases.

14. However, if none appears to seek custody of the vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O. may move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for interim custody, to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle and afford an opportunity of hearing before such reference is made. Even if the reference is made after giving an opportunity for hearing, the DDC also has to hear the owner before the asset, in the form of a vehicle, is sold in public auction. On such sale being carried out, the amount received shall be deposited before the Jurisdictional Court, since the procedure delineated for disposal does not include confiscation. Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Explains Procedure For Disposal Of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act; Says Notice To Owner Mandatory

The view taken by the High Court of Madras in Nahoorkani1 runs counter to the view of this Court in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241. On reading the NDPS Act, this Court was of the view that the vehicle in which the contraband is alleged to have been found carried, can be confiscated by the Trial Court only on conclusion of the trial, when the Accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged. It was also held that, if the view is, of confiscation, then an opportunity of hearing has to be granted before such order is passed. There can be no confiscation, if the owner is able to prove that the vehicle was used without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the vehicle by the Accused persons. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Print Page

Whether legal heirs of owner of motor vehicle can claim compensation U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act?

In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha MANU/SC/7047/2007 : (2007) 9 SCC 263; Dhanraj (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut MANU/SC/1233/2007 : (2007) 3 SCC 700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev MANU/SC/7081/2008 : (2008) 3 SCC 193, it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability Under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2019

Decided On: 07.01.2020

 Ramkhiladi  Vs. The United India Insurance Company and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Print Page

Supreme Court : Borrower of vehicle can not claim compensation from owner or insurer of vehicle U/S 163A of MV Act

 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in

the case of Ningamma (supra). In that case, the deceased was

driving a motorcycle which was borrowed from its real owner and

met with an accident by dashing against a bullock cart i.e. without

involving any other vehicle. The claim petition was filed under

Section 163A of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased

against the real owner of the motorcycle which was being driven by

the deceased. To that, this Court has observed and held that since

the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle,

Section 163A of the Act cannot apply wherein the owner of the

vehicle himself is involved. Consequently, it was held that the legal

representatives of the deceased could not have claimed the

compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, as such, in

the present case, the claimants could have even claimed the

compensation and/or filed the claim petition under Section 163A of

the Act against the driver, owner and insurance company of the

offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M

9223, being a third party with respect to the offending vehicle.

However, no claim under Section 163A was filed against the driver,

owner and/or insurance company of the motorcycle bearing

registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. It is an admitted position that

the claim under Section 163A of the Act was only against the owner

and the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration

No. RJ 02 SA 7811 which was borrowed by the deceased from the

opponentowner

Bhagwan Sahay. Therefore, applying the law laid

down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), and as the

deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle

bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811, as rightly held by the High

Court, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act against the

owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration

No. RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be maintainable.

5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there

is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence

and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is

sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default

of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim

petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of

no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be

a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of

the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed

by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot

maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner

and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811.

In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of

insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the

insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present

case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a

third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration

No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability

of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions

of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of

Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred

by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person

(including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative)

carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party

caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said

decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not

require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily

injury to the owner of the vehicle.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9393 OF 2019

Ramkhiladi  Vs The United India Insurance Company 

Dated:January 7, 2020.

M. R. Shah, J.

Citation: (2020) 2 SCC 550

Print Page

Whether joint appeal by owner of vehicle and insurer is maintainable in motor accident case?

In Shila Datta (supra), the point of maintainability
of a joint appeal by the owner of a vehicle and the insurer came
up for consideration. Their Lordships observed that there was
no dispute that when an award is made by the Tribunal, the
owner of the vehicle, being a person aggrieved, can file an
appeal challenging his liability on any ground or challenge the
quantum of compensation. An appeal which is maintainable
when the owner of the vehicle files it, does not become nonmaintainable
merely on account of the insurer being a co-
appellant with the owner. When the insurer becomes a coappellant,
the owner of the vehicle does not cease to be a
person aggrieved. This question had come up for consideration
in Narendra Kumar v/s. Yarenissa [1998(9) SCC 202] where
it was held that even in the case of a joint appeal of the insurer
and the owner of the offending vehicle if an award has been
made against the tortfeasor as well as the insurer, even though
an appeal filed by the insurer was not competent, it may not be
dismissed as such. The tortfeasor can proceed with the appeal
after the cause-title is suitably amended by deleting the name
of the insurer.
23] In Shila Datta (supra), Their Lordships also
considered the judgment in Chinnama George and others vs.
N.K. Raju and another [(2000)4 SCC 130] where it held that
a joint appeal would not be maintainable and specifically
observed that this issue did not arise for consideration of the
three Judge Bench in Nicolletta Rohtagi (supra), as the
question therein was whether an insurer could file an appeal.
Their Lordships on a careful consideration were of the view that
the decision in the Chinnama George (supra), to the extent it
holds that a joint appeal is not maintainable, did not lay down
the correct law. As observed in Narendra Kumar (supra), the
owner of the vehicle does not cease to be an aggrieved person
merely because the insurer was ultimately liable under the
terms of the policy or under Section 149 of the Act. If the
owner by himself, can file an appeal as an aggrieved person and
such an appeal is maintainable, we fail to understand how the
presence of the insurer as a co-appellant would make the
appeal not maintainable. Whether the owner joins the insurer
or the insurer joins the owner makes no difference to the fact
that the owner continues to be a person aggrieved. When a
joint appeal is filed, to say that the insurer is not an aggrieved
person and the owner of the vehicle would not be an aggrieved
person, would lead to an anomalous situation and border on an
absurdity. Without entering in the question whether an insurer
is an aggrieved person, Their Lordships made it clear that on
account of the insurer being a co-appellant, would not affect the
maintainability of the appeal.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
 First Appeal No.78/2009 WITH
Cross Objection No.14/2009

  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

 Versus
SHRI GULAM MOHAMMAD,

 CORAM : NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, J.

 PRONOUNCED ON :22/09/2016.
Citation:2016(6) MHLJ 601

Print Page

When owner of vehicle can not be directed to furnish security as per prayer of insurance company?

No   doubt,   the   Tribunal   has   held   that   the
respondent No. 2 ­Reliance General Insurance Company to
pay   the   compensation   to   the   claimants   and   thereafter   torecover it from the owner of the vehicle.   However, in the
facts of the present case,  it is not possible to hold that before
release of the amount deposited by the respondent No. 2
Reliance General Insurance Company,  the owner should be
directed to secure the payment of compensation made to the
claimants.  It was  a third party claim and the liability of the
respondent   No.   2   ­Reliance   General   Insurance   Company
was unlimited.  The Tribunal has recorded the specific finding
that   the   respondent   No.   2   ­Reliance   General   Insurance
Company has failed to prove that the communication about
the dishonour of cheque submitted towards premium was
sent   to   the   Regional   Transport   Office.   The   liability   of

respondent No. 2 ­Reliance General Insurance Company is
absolute and hence, there is no occasion to direct furnishing
of   security   by   the   owner   as   a   condition   precedent   forwithdrawal of the amount deposited before the tribunal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2015 
 Gopalrao Punjaji Gayki,

...VERSUS...
Gopal s/o Dnyandeo Wakode,

CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE    :   14thJanuary, 2016 .
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR386

Print Page