Petitioner sought return of seized tractor via Cr.M.P. dismissed by Sessions Court. High Court revision held that release is discretionary; since investigation into illegal sand transport is pending and no charge sheet filed, seizure is valid. Revision dismissed.
Petition for return of seized Mahindra Tractor was not entertained; vehicle remains in police custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2021
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2021
Dineshkumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.by the The Inspector of Police, Poompugar Police Station, Nagapattinam Ditrict. ... Respondent (Crime No.258 of 2020)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.449 of 2021, dated 09.02.2021 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and further direct the respondents to return the petitioner's Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No.TN-82-D-9605 seized in Crime No.258 of 2020, on the file of the respondent-Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.449 of 2021 dismissing the petition filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking return of Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No.TN-82-D-9605 to the petitioner.
orders of the Court below dated 09.02.2021. Hence, this revision.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the alleged Mahindra Tractor vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of one unit of savudu sand and investigation is still pending and charge sheet not yet filed, and hence, he objects for release of the vehicle.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6.Admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioner for illegal transportation of river sand. This Court, time and again, gave a direction that stringent action should be taken in the case of Mines and Minerals and also natural resources. It is seen that in the present case, investigation is pending and charge sheet also not yet filed. If at all, after investigation found that the vehicle is involved in the commission of offence, it is liable to be confiscated. The release of the vehicle during investigation is purely the discretionary power of the Court. Therefore, the learned Judge by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot conduct roving enquiry at this stage.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
2.The Inspector of Police, Poompugar Police Station, Nagapattinam Ditrict.
Copy To
The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2021
RLD(CO) GN(03/08/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the warrantless seizure of a private vehicle for alleged illegal sand transportation is maintainable during pending investigation under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act.
Whether the District and Sessions Judge committed any perversity in dismissing the petition for return of the seized tractor despite pending investigation.
Whether the High Court can conduct a roving inquiry into the quantum of investigation while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dineshkumar
State
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
