Allowed

Prasanthkumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC30 Mar 2023CRL RC/603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, vehicle owner not accused in IPC 379 case, sought interim release of seized lorry. High Court relied on Supreme Court precedent allowing Magistrate to grant custody pending hearing to prevent vehicle depreciation, setting aside trial court order refusing release.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of the seized vehicle handed to petitioner subject to executing a bond, proving ownership, and undertakings regarding future use and production.

Prasanthkumar Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶7

Prasanthkumar ... Petitioner /vs/ State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem District. ... (Cr.No.27 of 2022) Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur and set aside the order dated 03.02.2023.

¶9

For Petitioner ... Mr. K.R.Samratt For Respondent ... Mr.R.Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (crl.side)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner seeking

¶12

to call for the records relating to the order dated 03.02.2023 made in

¶13

Page 1 of 9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶16

Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur and set aside the same.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.27 of 2022 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C for illegally transporting 1 ½ unit of pirachi soil. The respondent-Police, while arresting the accused persons, seized the Tipper lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 47 R 4981 along with the properties. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle has been kept in a open place in the Thammampatty Police Station Compound. If the vehicle is kept for a long time in the open space, it would cause damage to the vehicle.

¶18

The petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2023

¶19

before the Trial Court to release the vehicle to him. But it was dismissed, vide order dated 03.02.2023 on the ground that with regard to return of vehicles involved in mines and minerals theft, the power is Page 2 of 9

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶22

vested only with the Special Court. Hence, challenging the above said order, the petitioner filed the present Revision case.

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that

¶24

the petitioner is owner of the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN 47 R 4981 and since the above said vehicle was used to transport 1 ½ unit of pirachi soil illegally without any valid permit, it was seized and now, investigation is pending. Hence, he objected to return the vehicle to him.

¶25

5.I have considered the submissions made by the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.

¶27

6.On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2022 at about 08.00 hours, the respondent- Police has received a secret information about the illegal

¶28

Page 3 of 9

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶31

extraction of soil near Jangamasamuthram. The Police team went to the scene of occurrence where they found that the accused persons were illegally extracting and loading the soil in the tipper lorry and on seeing the police, they tried to escape from the spot and the respondent Police caught them and seized the tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN 47 R 4981 along with 1 ½ unit of Pirachi soil. Based on the above, a case was registered in Crime No.27 of 2002, under Section 379 I.P.C against the accused. Now, the vehicle is in the custody of the respondent-Police.

¶32

7.Considering the nature of the case that the petitioner is the owner of the Tipper lorry and also that he is not an accused in this case and the petitioner is ready to give guarantee and security for returning the vehicle and if the vehicle is being kept idle in open space, it would cause damage to the vehicle and the value of the vehicle is diminished and continuing to keep the vehicle in open air would make the vehicle unusable, this Court is inclined to grant

¶33

Page 4 of 9

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶36

interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶37

8.At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others

¶38

Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)2745 of 2022 dated 01.10.2002 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder.

¶39

Vehicles:

¶40

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶41

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured

¶42

Page 5 of 9

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶45

with the insurance company, then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle, which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance Company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchanama should be prepared.

¶46

Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that keeping the vehicle idle in the open space, will diminish its nature and lose its value and no purpose will be served. As such, considering the nature of offence and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in this case, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

¶47

Page 6 of 9

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶50

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the

¶51

impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The interim custody of the vehicle is ordered to be handed over to the petitioner on the following conditions.

¶52

i. the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the vehicle by producing the R.C.Book and other relevant records;

¶53

ii.the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶54

(Rupees one lakh only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate

¶55

No.2, Attur.

¶56

iii.The Court may prepare a panchnama in Judicial Form No.82 with regard to the vehicle and such panchanama can be used in evidence.

¶57

iv.the petitioner may take photograph of the vehicle and certified under Section 65B of the Central At 1 of 1972 and such photographs may be used as secondary evidence.

¶58

v. the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in any

¶59

manner;

¶60

Page 7 of 9

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶63

vi.the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future,

¶64

vii.the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle as and when required before the court below and before the respondent police.

¶65

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No srn

¶66

30.03.2023

¶67

¶68

The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur

¶69

The Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem District.

¶70

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶71

Page 8 of 9

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶74

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,

¶75

srn

¶76

Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2023

¶77

30.03.2023

¶78

Page 9 of 9

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prasanthkumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanthkumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagarajan Vs State Rep.by

M. Kuppusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Karthick Vs the Station House Officer

M/S.Sanjay Real Estate Vs Venkateshwaran

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

R.Anandha Sekar Vs S.Ramesh Kumar