NDPS disposal procedure: traced seized narcotics must follow Section 52A, not confiscation for unknown offenders.

Seized narcotic drugs traced to identifiable consignors and addressees did not fall within the category of wholly unclaimed property or unknown offender contemplated by Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act. The statutory scheme required disposal of such seized substances under Section 52A, with the prescribed safeguards for samples and records, rather than direct confiscation under Section 63(2). On that basis, the trial court correctly declined to proceed under Section 63(2), and no interference was warranted with the order directing disposal under Section 52A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized narcotic drugs and related case property were to be confiscated and disposed of under Section 63(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, or whether the proper course was disposal under Section 52A of that Act, and whether interference with the trial court's order was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The seized parcels were traced to named or identifiable consignors and addressees, and the facts did not disclose a case of wholly unclaimed property or a situation where the offender was truly unknown or untraceable in the sense contemplated by Section 63(2). The statutory scheme distinguished between disposal of seized narcotic substances under Section 52A and confiscation where the person connected with the offence is not known or cannot be found under Section 63(2). On the facts, the Court held that the proper procedure for custody and disposal of the seized material was the one under Section 52A, supported by the governing disposal procedure and the safeguards for retaining samples and records.

Conclusion: The petition challenging the order of the Special Judge failed. The trial court was in refusing to proceed directly under Section 63(2), and the impugned order calling for disposal under Section 52A required no interference.

---