Allowed

Manikandan v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC27 Aug 2020CRL RC/621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal revision to set aside interim order denying custody of seized vehicle. Court directed police to release vehicle on surety bond, deposit, and undertaking within 7 days based on Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle to be released to petitioner on deposit, surety bond, undertaking, and other conditions within 7 days; interim order dated 20.02.2020 set aside.

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2020

¶6

Manikandan ...Petitioner/owner of the vehicle

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thittacherry Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.233 of 2019) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶11

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶12

This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.

¶13

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle (TATA Ace) bearing Registration No.PY-02-L-1127 and let the same on hire. The petitioner's vehicle was seized on 07.09.2019, while transporting ½ unit of river sand and a case was registered in Crime No.233 of 2019 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.602 of 2020 before the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the vehicle, which

¶14

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

¶15

was dismissed on 20.02.2020, challenging which, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

¶16

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

¶17

It is seen that the seizure was effected on 07.09.2019 and the vehicle is in the police station open to sun and rain.

¶18

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 (TATA Ace) bearing Registration No.PY-02-L-1127 to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of compliance of the below mentioned condition Nos.(i) to (iii) :

¶19

(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 non-refundable deposit;

¶20

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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;

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

1(2002) 10 SCC 290

¶24

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

¶25

(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;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

This petition is allowed in the above terms and the order
dated 20.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2020 on the file
of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, is set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thittacherry Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, Advocate, Sr.No.28071

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.621 of 2020 ssv (co) rr ii (14/09/2020)

¶31

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

Manikandan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. the 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

S.Prabakaran Vs State by

Arumugam Sivalingam Vs State Rep.by

Rajiv Gandhi Vs the State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Sivakumar, Aged 44 Years, Vs State Rep. by

State by Vs Suresh @ Palanivelu

Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police