Allowed

S. Pattu Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/5662/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed by the registered owner of a stolen vehicle involved in an offence. The Court set aside the lower court's order denying return and directed the return of the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Cancelled the order of the Judicial Magistrate denying return of the vehicle and directed the respondent to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner.

S. Pattu Raj Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5662 of 2014

¶6

S.Pattu Raj

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶9

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam in Cr.M.P.No.7679 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013 and further direct the respondent to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

¶13

2.The Criminal Original Petition is filed to to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam in Cr.M.P.No.7679 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013 and further direct the respondent to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, which has been stolen by the vendor and the same has been involved in a criminal offence and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the petitioner having come to know about production of the vehicle, has filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return of vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate, which was denied on the only reason that if it is alleged to be returned, it would involve in any other offence. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner is nothing to do with the offence.

¶15

4.A perusal of the record would show that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and he has not involved in the offence. However, in view of the Judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., Vs. State of T.N reported in (2011(1) MLJ (Crl.)191 , the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed the present petition for modification and in the said judgment this Court laid the Ratio Decidendi, which reads as follows:-

¶16

¶17

"The return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception as it is today and in cases where return of vehicles is sought and the claim therefor is highly contested, resort to sale of vehicle and credit of the proceeds in fixed deposits pending disposal of the case would be to the common good."

¶18

5.Considering the pendency of the case, this Court is of the view that the condition has to be modified as per paragraph 13 of the above cited judgment, which reads as follows:-

¶19

"13. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The concerned Lower Court shall, upon production of the certified copy of this order, fix a date for production of the vehicle before it. Upon production, the lower Court shall cause photographs of the vehicle to be taken and record Panchanam thereof. The petitioner shall then be at liberty to effect sale of vehicle. The photographs and Panchnama prepared shall be read as evidence in lieu of marking of the vehicles."

¶20

6.This petition is allowed in above terms and the order is modified accordingly.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

To.

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate, Vilathkulam.

¶27

The Inspector of police, Kulathur Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶28

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr. S.A.S.Alaudeen ,Advocate in SR.No. 24641

¶30

TS/27.06.2014/2P-5c

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5662 of 2014

¶32

22.04.2014

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Pattu Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Pattu Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irudhayaprakasam Vs Anitha

V.Sandalmuthuraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Devanesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Thiruselvam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Velu Alias Sournavelu, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Thiagarajan, Vs the Superintendent of Police