Allowed

Manimegalai v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Feb 2022CRL RC/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC to set aside an order dismissing an application for the return of a petitioner's tractor. The vehicle was seized in alleged illegal sand mining. The Court directed its return on conditions including an undertaking against future illegal use.

What did the court decide?

Return of the seized Tractor (TN-50 AW-6378) to the petitioner on conditions regarding ownership proof, non-alienation, undertaking against illegal use, and participation in confiscation proceedings.

Manimegalai Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2022

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2022

Manimegalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Cr.No.642 of 2020) ....Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.260 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022 on the file of the learned Principle District and Session Judge, Nagapattinam and further direct the respondents to return the petitioner's Tractor bearing Register No.TN-50 AW-6378 seized in Crime No.642 of 2020 on the file of Respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Revision Petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle viz Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-50 AW-6378 and has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.642 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police and has been accused of the offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. The offence is that this vehicle was involved in the transportation of illegal sand mining.

¶15

2.The aforesaid vehicle of the revision petitioner was taken into custody by the respondent Police, for return of which, the revision petitioner had moved the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.260 of 2022 which came to be dismissed by the trial Court Vide order dated 02.02.2022.

¶16

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

¶17

3.Heard, both sides.

¶18

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the vehicle was not involved in any such offence earlier and also added that the confiscation proceedings has not yet been commenced.

¶19

5.After hearing both sides, this Court chooses to allow this petition and accordingly directs the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam to return the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-50 AW-6378, to the petitioner, on the following conditions:-

¶20

(i)The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam on perusal of the RC book and other records, retaining the Xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to the petitioner with a view to use the vehicle; (ii)The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner till confiscation proceedings is over;

¶21

(iii)The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent or the Court below as well as by the District Collector of the District or authorized officer in that behalf by the Government;

¶22

(iv)The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation proceedings, if any initiated, and shall produce the vehicle, before the confiscation authority. This order is subjected to the confiscation proceedings.

¶23

6.With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 02.02.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.260 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

msv/nr

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Principle District and Session Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam District. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, Advocate SR.No.12918

¶33

Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2022

¶34

AD(CO) GN(14/03/2022)

¶35

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

Manimegalai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimegalai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaraj Vs Venkatesan

K.Kurunthasalam Vs Elango

Regia Begum Vs the State Rep. by

Rajeev Gandhi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.Ajithkumar Vs State Rep by

Vasantharaja Vs State Rep by