Allowed

Chithra v. the State Represented by

Madras HC24 Aug 2020CRL RC/605/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a lower court order refusing interim custody of a seized tractor-trailer used in mining operations. The vehicle was released on conditions including a monetary deposit, personal bond, undertaking against illegal use, and surrender of registration documents. The impugned order dated 10.07.2020 was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the tractor-trailer granted on conditions; Order dated 10.07.2020 set aside.

Chithra Vs the 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.605 of 2020

¶6

Chithra ... Petitioner/
owner of the vehicle
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Sirkazhi,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
seeking to set aside the order dated 10.07.2020 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1750 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions
Court, Nagapattinam and to return the vehicle viz., Tractor with
trailer bearing Registration Nos.TN-51-Q-9112 & TN-51-AY-1823
respectively.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sakthivel
For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan
Government Advocate
(Crl. Side)
O R D E R

¶7

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 10.07.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1750 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam and to return the vehicle viz., Tractor with trailer bearing Registration Nos.TN-51-Q-9112 & TN-51-AY-1823 respectively.

¶9

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (Tractor with Trailer) bearing Registration Nos.TN-51-Q-9112 & TN-51-AY1823 respectively and let the same on hire. The petitioner's

¶10

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

¶11

vehicle was seized on 12.04.2020, while transporting one unit of clay sand and a case was registered in Crime No.289 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 188, 269 and 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1750 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 10.07.2020, challenging which, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

¶12

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

¶13

It is seen that the seizure was effected on 12.04.2020 and the vehicle is in the police station open to sun and rain.

¶14

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 (Tractor with Trailer) bearing Registration Nos.TN-51-Q-9112 & TN-51-AY-1823 respectively, to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned condition Nos.(i) to (iii) :

¶15

(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/before the jurisdictional Tahsildar as nonrefundable 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 nonrefundable deposit;

¶16

(ii The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a ) sum of Rs.50,000/- 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;

¶17

1(2002) 10 SCC 290

¶18

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

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

This petition is allowed in the above terms and the order dated 10.07.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1750 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, is set aside.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sirkazhi,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
Crl.R.C.No.605 of 2020
ssd[co]
srg 28/09/2020

¶32

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

Chithra v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chithra v. the 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

Uikkatan Vs State Represented by

Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by

Sekar, 60 Yrs, Vs State Rep by