Allowed

P.Vasantha v. State Rep. by

Madras HC13 Feb 2020CRL RC/1323/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision seeking to set aside a lower court's order refusing to release an impounded tractor tipper, the High Court allowed the petition. It directed the police to release the vehicle to the petitioner within seven days subject to specific conditions including security deposit, bond, and undertakings to prevent alienation and illegal use.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to grant interim custody of the tractor tipper (TN51-M-0146) to the petitioner within seven days subject to conditions including security deposit of Rs.75,000 and personal bond.

P.Vasantha Vs State Rep. by — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1323 of 2019

P.Vasantha

... Petitioner

Vs.

State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Nagapattinam District, Crime No.216/2019 ... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.3131 of 2019 in Crime No.216 of 2019 and to return the Tractor and Tipper bearing Registration No.TN51-M-0146 to the custody of the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Vijayaragavan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K. Prabakar,

¶13

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶14

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.3131 of 2019 in Crime No.216 of 2019.

¶15

During regular rounds, the respondent / police intercepted a Tractor Tipper bearing registration No.TN51-M-0146 (belonging to the petitioner) containing half unit of sand, arrested the driver, seized the vehicle and registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2019 on 18.06.2019 under Section 379 and 430 IPC read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Seeking return of the vehicle, the petitioner, being the owner filed Crl.M.P.No.3131 of 2019 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and the said petition was dismissed by order dated 11.11.2019, challenging which, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

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

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner nor this vehicle involved in any other case earlier. Though the reasons given by the trial Court in dismissing the petition cannot be faulted, yet, this Court is of the view that if the vehicle remains in the custody of the police indefinitely, it will get deteriorated.

¶19

In view of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 290], this Court is of the view that interests of justice will be served, if the vehicle is ordered to be released to the petitioner on certain stringent conditions. The respondent / police is directed to grant interim custody of the said tractor tipper bearing registration No.TN51-M-0146 to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned conditions:

¶20

i. the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/(Rupees seventy five thousand only) before the jurisdictional Tahsildar as non-refundable deposit. After receipt of the above said amount,the same will have to be deposited by the Tahsildar, to the credit of the District Mines and Minerals Foundation trust as non-refundable deposit;

¶21

ii.the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;

¶22

iii.the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that she will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondent and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle;

¶23

iv.the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;

¶24

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

¶25

v. the petitioner shall take photographs of the vehicle and submit the same along with Compact Disc duly certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

¶26

vi.the petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. book before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. ; and

¶27

vii.the petitioner is also directed to participate in
the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.
viii. It is also made clear that after release of the
vehicle on complying with the conditions imposed
by this court, if the said vehicle is found to be
involved in any of the offence, it is always open to
the respondent to proceed further for confiscation.
ix.Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any
purpose in the future, may be filed before the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam,
who may consider the same on merits.
6.This petition is allowed in the above terms.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
srk
To
1 The District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Police Station,
Nagapattinam District,
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.M. Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate sr 11777.
Crl.R.C.No.1323 of 2019
NRJK(CO)
SP(04/03/2020)

¶28

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

P.Vasantha v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vasantha v. State Rep. by

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

S.Ramesh Vs State Rep. by

Lakshmanan, Aged 40 Years, Vs Elangovan

Boopathy Vs State Rep by

P.Venatesan Vs S.Sakthi Lakshmi

Madhan Mohan Vs Priyadharshini

B.Sampath Vs G.Murugan