Disposed

Manikandan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Mar 2022WP(MD)/4517/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of a vehicle seized for alleged illicit liquor carriage. The Court held that since confiscation under Section 14 was not yet ordered, the petitioner must seek remedy under CrPC Chapter XXXIV read with Section 53 of the TNP Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to work out remedy under CrPC Chapter XXXIV; liberty granted if confiscation order passed to approach Sessions Court.

Manikandan Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP (MD) No. 4517 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.03.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.4517 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4279 of 2021

¶5

Manikandan, S/o.Dhandapani .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶8

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchatram Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.438 of 2020) .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (Toyato Qualis Car) bearing Registration No.TN-38-Q-0470.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle (Toyato Qualis Car) bearing Registration No.TN-38-Q-0470, seized by the third respondent Police, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 23.02.2021.

¶13

2.It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's vehicle was seized on 21.04.2020 by the third respondent for carrying liquor bottles illegally and that a false case was registered against the driver of the vehicle in Crime No.438 of 2020 for the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 [hereinafter referred to as ''the TNP Act''] and that the petitioner's attempts to explain the same to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/3

¶15

WP (MD) No. 4517 of 2021

¶16

third respondent was futile, as the third respondent has not released the vehicle nor produced the same before the competent authority so far.

¶17

3.Opposing the prayer, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the vehicle was used for carrying liquor bottles illicitly and therefore, the vehicle used for illegal transit was liable to be confiscated under Section 14 of the TNP Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

4.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶19

5.Under similar circumstances, this Court, by a detailed order, dated 11.02.2022, in W.P.(MD)No.2796 of 2022 in the case of Vijayamuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District and another, the law relating to seizure and release of the vehicle has been discussed. Essentially, in terms of the above said order, it has been held that a person whose vehicle has been seized in terms of Section 51 of the TNP Act, can initiate proceedings under Chapter XXXIV of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 53 of the TNP Act.

¶20

6.It appears that the vehicle has not yet ordered to be confiscated under Section 14 of the TNP Act. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to work out his remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as made applicable to the seized vehicle under the TNP Act. In case, the respondents have already passed an order of confiscation under Section 14 of the TNP Act, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court under Section 14(5) of the TNP Act within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

7.This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

smn

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

WP (MD) No. 4517 of 2021

¶28

¶29

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchatram Police Station, Dindigul District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-11877[F] dated 14/03/2022 ) WP (MD) No.4517 of 2021 11.03.2022 MGJ(07.04.2022) 3P 5C

¶30

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

¶31

3/3

Manikandan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. the 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

Tvl.Alamelu Contracts Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Asaraf Vs the Chairman

Udaiyappan Vs the Commissioner

Basheer Ahmed S.I. Vs the Principal Secretary

Tvl.Susee Automative Private Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ganesan.R Vs the Licensing Authority