Allowed

Venkatchalam v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC11 Feb 2020CRL RC/184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to order the release of a seized tractor to the petitioner. Despite faultless reasons in the lower court for dismissal, the Court intervened to prevent vehicle deterioration, directing release subject to deposit, sureties, and an undertaking against illegal use.

What did the court decide?

The seized Mahindra tractor was ordered to be released to the petitioner within 7 days subject to compliance of conditions including security deposit, bond with sureties, and undertaking.

Venkatchalam Vs State Rep. by Its — Corruption | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.184 of 2020

¶6

Venkatchalam

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State by its Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. Crime No.284/2019.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.224 of 2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Subramaniam

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K. Prabakar,

¶13

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶14

This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.224 of 2020.

¶15

2.During regular rounds, the Sub-Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station intercepted the Mahindra 475 DI Tractor and Tipper bearing Reg.No.TN-51-E-1563, belonging to the petitioner, carrying 1 unit of river sand, arrested the driver, seized the vehicle and registered a case in Crime No.284 of 2019 under Section 379 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.224 of 2020 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and the said petition was dismissed by order dated 22.01.2020. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner nor this vehicle involved in any other case earlier.

¶19

5.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.

¶20

6.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 interest 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 Mahindra 475 DI Tractor cum Tipper bearing Reg.No.TN-51-E-1563 to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned conditions:

¶21

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;

¶22

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 District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;

¶23

iii.the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he 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;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

vi.the petitioner shall surrender the original R.C.
book before the District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam; and
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 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-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vedaranyam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.K.M.Subramaniam, Advocate sr 10699
Crl.R.C.No.184 of 2020
RK(CO)
SP(12/02/2020)

¶28

Crl.R.C.No.184 of 2020

¶29

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

Venkatchalam v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatchalam v. State Rep. by Its

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

Periyasamy Vs State by

S.Sekar Vs Sri.K.Mariasamy

Shyla Vs Josewilfred

Bhuvaneswaran Vs State Represented by

Sumithra Vs Ramadoss Rao

Thangam, 57 Years Vs Pandurangan