Allowed

Arjunan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Oct 2021WP/21428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition filed by a vehicle owner seeking release of his car seized under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The court directed the police to release the vehicle upon the petitioner paying a nominal fee, surrendering ownership documents, and undertaking not to alienate the vehicle until confiscation proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the Legal Service Authority, provide ownership documents, and undertake not to alienate the vehicle or evade production on enq

Arjunan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

W.P.NO.21428 OF 2021

¶6

Arjunan

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

¶10

Prohibition Enforcement Wing,

¶11

Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

2. The Inspector of Police Royakottai Police Station

¶13

Krishnagir District.

¶14

Crime No.109 of 2021

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle namely, Mahindra
Bolero Jeep bearing Regn.No.KA 01 MF 3032, which was seized by
second respondent in Crime No.109 of 2021.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy

¶18

For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
 Govt. Advocate(Crl.side)

¶19

 ORDER

¶20

 The petitioner, who is the owner of Mahindra Bolero
Vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 01 MF 3032, has filed this petition
seeking direction directing the respondents to release the
petitioner's vehicle.

¶21

2.The 2nd respondent seized the vehicle in Crime No.109
of 2021 finding that on 20.06.2021, the petitioner's vehicle
was involved in offences under Sections 4 (1) (a) and 4(1-A) of
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The complaint is that when the
2nd respondent along with his team was keeping surveillance watch
over the prohibition offenders, at that time, near one
Narayanan's house, they saw a Bolero Jeep. Seeing the 2nd
respondent, two persons sitting in the jeep attempted to escape,

¶22

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

¶23

one person was caught and another escaped. The person, who was
caught found to be Raman, enquired who disclosed the absconding
accused Arjunan, the petitioner herein. From the Bolero Jeep,
liquor bottles were seized. Finding that the vehicle was
involved in prohibition offence, the vehicle was seized later
and produced in the police station.

¶24

3.The contention of the petitioner is that the seized
vehicle of the petitioner is now kept in open, in the police
station exposing to vagaries of weather, and the vehicle is kept
idle. The value of the vehicle is diminished and continuing to
keep the vehicle in open would make the vehicle unusable. The
respondent police not followed the instructions contemplated in
G.O.Ms.No.39,(Home), Prohibition and Excise (VII) Department,
dated 22.10.2019. The respondents failed to follow Section
14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

¶25

4.In view of the same, the questioning of detaining the
vehicle and auctioning the same without any confiscation does
not arise. The vehicle has also not been produced before the
lower Court as a case property. The petitioner, further relied
upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.12769 of 2020
(Selvaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District,
Trichy) dated 28.09.2020, wherein, in similar circumstances,
this court had passed an order granting interim custody of the
vehicle.

¶26

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that
in this case, the vehicle, though was seized by the respondent
police on 20.06.2021, the vehicle is yet to be produced before
the lower court as a case property in Crime No.109 of 2021, but
the seized liquor bottles were produced. The vehicle was not
produced, since they are contemplating to initiate confiscation
proceedings. He further submits that the 2nd respondent sent the
communication to the Additional Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri on 27.08.2021 to initiate the confiscation
proceedings, but yet to receive any orders from the Additional
Superintendent of Police.

¶27

6.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware
about the confiscation proceedings, no notice served to him,
finding that the vehicle seized in the month of June 2021 and so
far, the vehicle neither produced before the lower court, nor
confiscation proceedings initiated. Only now request made to
the Additional Superintendent of Police. It is made clear that
it is open to the respondents to initiate and conclude the
confiscation proceedings interim custody of the vehicle alone
granted this court in an identical situation had directed
release the seized vehicle and handed over to the petitioner.
The respondents to release the said vehicle subject to the
following conditions:-

¶28

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

¶29

“a.The petitioner is directed to pay a
sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) in
favour of the Legal Service Authority,
Krishnagiri.It will be a non-refundable
payment. The Legal Service Authority is
directed to spend the amount for appropriate
welfare activities.

¶30

b.The petitioner shall not alienate or
encumber the vehicle in question till the
proceedings are completed.

¶31

c.The petitioner shall produce all the
documents pertaining to the ownership of the
seized vehicle.

¶32

d.As and when the respondents call for
the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to
produce the vehicle in question and he shall
cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by
the respondents.

¶33

7.Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents
shall release the vehicle forthwith without any delay. If this
undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner
will not be entitled to interim release of the vehicle in
future. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
No costs.

¶34

8.It is made clear that it is only the interim
measurement subject to the outcome of the confiscation
proceedings.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

sms/nr

¶40

To

¶41

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶42

2. The Inspector of Police Royakottai Police Station Krishnagir District.

¶43

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

¶44

3. The Public Prosecutor,
 High Court, Madras.

¶45

4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri.

¶46

Copy To

¶47

 The Legal Service Authority,
 Krishnagiri.

¶48

W.P.No.21428 of 2021

¶49

RLD(CO)
RLP(11/10/2021)

¶50

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

Arjunan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjunan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Thangamani Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.Hemalatha Vs N.Rajasekar

Sagunthala Vs State Rep.by

E.Tamilarasan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Ashokan @ Ashok Vs the State Rep.by

T.Alagarsamy Vs the State Rep.by