Allowed

Thanesekaran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2019CRL RC(MD)/900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision against the dismissal of a petition for interim custody of a seized tipper lorry. The Court held that vehicles must be returned to the owner during confiscation proceedings and directed their return under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle returned to petitioner with conditions: deposit original RC, pay Rs.50,000 security, no vehicle alterations, and produce on demand.

Thanesekaran Vs The Inspector of Police — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.12.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

¶6

Crl.RC(MD)No.900 of 2019

¶7

Thanasekaran : Petitioner/Accused No.1/ Owner of the Vehicle

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Salaigramam Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.47 of 2019) : Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer: This Criminal Revision has been filed under sections 397 and /w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the dismissal order, dated 04.10.2019 in Crl.MP No.2513 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.

¶11

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.APG Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle (Tipper Lorry) bearing Registration No.TN-63-AX-5330 and the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2019 for the alleged offence under section 379 IPC and section 21(iv) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 on the basis of the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer of Seevalathi Group alleging that the said Tipper Lorry was used for transportation of Savadu sand without permission. The petitioner, being the lawful owner of the alleged vehicle, filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.2513 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, for interim custody, which was dismissed on 04.10.2019. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned trial Judge has failed to ascertain the claim of the petitioner as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only an interim arrangement as to the custody of the vehicle and

¶16

1/3

¶17

¶18

prays for allowing the revision.

¶19

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the alleged vehicle was seized by the respondent in connection with a case in Crime No.47 of 2019 for the alleged offence under section 379 IPC and section 21(iv) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957.

¶20

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

5.The only ground upon which the lower court has dismissed the petition is that the petition for interim custody of the vehicle is not maintainable. The view taken by the learned Judge is not correct. Further, it is well settled that during the pendency of confiscation proceeding, the vehicle needs to be returned to the person, who is entitled to have. This return will have no impact on the confiscation proceeding, as the confiscation proceeding is an independent proceeding.

¶22

6.In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed and the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in Crl.M.P.No.2513 of 2019, dated 04.10.2019 is set aside. The learned Judge is directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

¶23

(a)The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle;

¶24

(b)The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.47 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶25

(c)The petitioner shall not make any alteration of the vehicle; and

¶26

(d)The petitioner shall produce the same before the Court as and when required.

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

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

2/3

To,

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.

¶35

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

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.A.MOHAN, Advocate ( SR-106194[F] dated 20/12/2019 )

¶37

Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.900 of 2019 20.12.2019

¶38

mr(CO) TR(20.12.2019)3P 4C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Thanesekaran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanesekaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anton Victoriya Vs a.Ganeshwary@Blessy

A. Suba Sundari Vs The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate And Revenue Divisional Officer

P. Kandasamy Vs Balakrishnan

A.D. Arun Vs The Intelligence Officer

S. Sheik Abdulla Vs a. Gurusamy

Mohandass Vs The Inspector of Police