Allowed

Uikkatan v. State Represented by

Madras HC24 Aug 2020CRL RC/595/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision to set aside dismissal of an interim custody petition. Court ordered police to release a seized vehicle operating under strict financial deposits, personal bonds, undertakings against illegal use, and participation in enquiries under Supreme Court guidelines, focusing on interests of justice.

What did the court decide?

Intim custody of TATA 407 vehicle granted to petitioner upon depositing Rs. 50,000 non-refundable, executing bond with sureties, submitting undertaking not to use vehicle illegally, and fulfilling oth

Uikkatan Vs State Represented by — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.595 of 2020

¶6

Uikkatan ... Petitioner/A-4 owner of the vehicle Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kuthalam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.175 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 16.06.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1372 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 16.06.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1372 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.

¶7

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

¶8

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (TATA 407) bearing Registration No.TN-92-C-9421 and let the same on hire. The petitioner's vehicle was seized on 04.04.2020, while transporting one unit of agricultural sand and a case was registered in Crime No 175 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 379 and 430 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1372 of 2020 before the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the vehicle, which was dismissed on 16.06.2020, challenging which, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

¶9

Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Madhan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

¶10

It is seen that the seizure was effected on 04.04.2020 and the vehicle is in the police station open to sun and rain. Admittedly, there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶11

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in view of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat¹ , 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.TN-92-C-9421 to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned condition Nos.(i) to (iii) :

¶12

(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty 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, Nagapattinam as non-refundable deposit;

¶13

1(2002) 10 SCC 290

¶14

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

¶15

(ii The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a ) sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;

¶16

(ii The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the i) 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;

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(vi The petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. ) book before the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam; and

¶20

(vi The petitioner is also directed to participate in i) the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.

¶21

Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any purpose in the future, may be filed before the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, who may consider the same on merits, though this order has been passed by the High Court.

¶22

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

¶23

This petition is allowed in the above terms and the order dated 16.06.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1372 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, is set aside.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsdTo
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kuthalam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
5.The District Mines and Minerals Foundation Trust,
Nagapattinam.
Crl.R.C.No.595 of 2020
ajs[co]
srg 09/10/2020

¶26

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

Uikkatan v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uikkatan v. State Represented 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

P.Mookkan, Aged 61 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Amutha Vs State Rep.by

P.Balamurugan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by

Chithra Vs the State Represented by

Sekar, 60 Yrs, Vs State Rep by