Allowed

Thoosimuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Sept 2011CRL RC(MD)/661/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition upheld the petitioner's claim for the return of a seized Tata ACE vehicle for interim custody. The Madurai Bench ordered the return of the vehicle subject to the execution of a bond, proof of ownership, and an affidavit undertaking to produce the vehicle monthly, overruling the lower court's rejection of the plea.

What did the court decide?

Return of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to execution of a bond for Rs. 4 Lakhs, proof of ownership, and undertaking to produce the vehicle monthly.

Thoosimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Thoosimuthu

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.661 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011

¶4

... Petitioner/accused No.4

¶5

¶6

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi ... Respondent/complainant

¶7

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin in Cr.M.P.No.3772 of 2011 dated 13.07.2011.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.Kandasamy

Govt.Advocate

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

The vehicle of the petitioner, namely, TATA ACE bearing registration No.TN 69 A Y 0218 was seized in Crime No.193 of 2011 for the offence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act,1955. (for short the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an application under Section 457 read with 451 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking interim custody of the vehicle in question. The respondent raised objections stating that confiscation proceedings contemplated in the Essential Commodities Act,1955, has been initiated against the petitioner before the District Revenue Officer and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. Accepting the objections, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin had dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Court reported in 2005-1-L.W.(Crl)93, G.Chandramohan Vs State by Inspector of Police, in which this Court while dealing the like proceedings under the Prohibition Act has observed that even though any proposal is made for confiscation of the vehicle, interim custody will not be a bar and even though confiscation proceedings are initiated, appropriate orders will be passed directing the petitioner to produce the vehicle.

¶15

In view of the opinion expressed by this Court earlier that the confiscation proceedings will not be a bar for entrusting the vehicle temporarily with the petitioner and whenever it is required, the petitioner can be directed to produce the vehicle in question before the Court as well as before the authorities concerned. Hence, I am inclined https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to order return of the vehicle for interim custody to the petitioner following the earlier view of this Court cited supra, on the following

¶16

¶17

conditions:

¶18

“(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rupees Four Lakhs only to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.

¶19

(ii)Produces proof of ownership of the vehicle; and (iii) Files affidavit of undertaking stating that:-

¶20

(a)he will not alienate, encumber or change the physical features of the vehicle;

¶21

(b)he will produce the vehicle on the first working day of every month before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin until further orders from this Court.”

¶22

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in terms of the conditions indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar (W)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin. 2.The Inspector of Police,

¶29