Allowed

M.Yogaraj v. State Rep.by

Madras HC17 Feb 2020CRL RC/248/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to set aside an order dismissing a petition for the return of a seized lorry. It directed the police to grant interim custody to the petitioner on seven days' time subject to stringent conditions including a security deposit, bonding, and undertaking against illegal use, citing Supreme Court guidelines to prevent vehicle deterioration.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to grant interim custody of the lorry to petitioner within 7 days subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000, bond, sureties, undertaking, photographic evidence, and surrender of R.C. book.

M.Yogaraj Vs State Rep.by — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2020

¶6

M.Yogaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District, Crime No.471/2019

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District, in Crl.M.P.No.6 of 2020 in Crime No.471 of 2019 and to return the 'Tipper Lorry', bearing Registration No.TN39-CX-4935, Chassis number MBIG3DYC3BRWE1948 and Engine Number.WBH687337 as Interim custody to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Shanmugan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. K.Prabakar,

¶13

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District, in Crl.M.P.No.6 of 2020.

¶16

During regular rounds, the Tahsildar, through the Revenue Inspector, has inspected the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. TN39-CX-4935 (belonging to the petitioner) containing four unit of stone blocks, arrested the driver of the lorry, seized the vehicle and registered a case on 05.10.2019 in Crime No.471 of 2019 under Sections 379 IPC. Seeking return of the vehicle, the petitioner, being the owner filed Crl.M.P.No.6 of 2020 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District, and

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

the said petition was dismissed by order dated 27.01.2020, challenging which, the present petition has been filed.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

In view of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of 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 vehicle bearing registration No.TN39-CX-4935 to the petitioner within a period of seven (7) days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned conditions:

¶24

i. the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh 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 nonrefundable deposit;

¶25

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 Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

trial Court, failing which the trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle;

¶30

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

¶31

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;

¶32

vi.the petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. book before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District.

¶33

vii.the petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.

¶34

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.

¶35

ix.Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any purpose in the future, may be filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District, who may consider the same on merits.

¶36

This petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶37

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

3/4

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, Tiruppur District

¶42

The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶43

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶44

4.Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur Distirct.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.S.A.Shanmugam, Advocate sr.13341
Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2020
nr 18/02/2020

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

M.Yogaraj v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yogaraj 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

R. Selvaraj, 41 Yrs, Vs Mrs. EASWARI-37 Yrs

P.Murthy Vs G.Ganesan

K.Saravanan Vs B.Deepadevi

N.Kumar Vs the State Rep. by Inspector of Police

D.Rajkumar Vs G.Monisha

K.Manikkam Vs R.Murugesan