Allowed¶23

Ratansingh v. State Rep.by

Madras HC28 Jan 2025CRL RC/144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return/interim custody of seized vehicle to owner in COTPA banned tobacco products FIR (Crime No. 48 of 2024; Sections 273, 238 IPC; Sections 7(1), 20(2) COTPA Act); Sections 497 & 503 BNSS application earlier rejected for non-appearance set aside in revision before Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan, J., 28.01.2025); conditions incl. Rs.3,00,000 personal bond, RC Book production, no alienation, subject to confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case allowed; impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in Crl.M.P. No. 1141 of 2024 set aside; respondent directed to return the vehicle Maruti 5-cross Smart Hybrid Zeta (Reg. No. TN 77 K 1380) to the petitioner on five conditions (personal bond with sureties; RC Book production; no alteration/alienation; undertaking to produce the vehicle; return subject to result of any confiscation proceedings).

Ratansingh Vs State Rep.by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Petition should be allowed and the Trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS for return of the seized vehicle (Maruti 5-Cross Smart Hybrid Zeta, Reg. No. TN 77 K 1380) set aside, granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions.

¶13

Court's answer

This Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur in Crl.M.P.No.1141 of 2024 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 is set aside.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Court considered that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle cannot be kept idle at the Police Station, which formed the basis for handing over interim custody.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court was inclined to hand over interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.ratio¶22
The respondent was directed to return the vehicle viz., Maruti 5-cross Smart Hybrid Zeta bearing Registration No. TN 77 K 1380 to the petitioner on the conditions set out in the order.ratio¶23
Condition (i): the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan, J.), by order dated 28.01.2025 in Crl.R.C. No. 144 of 2025, allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur in Crl.M.P. No. 1141 of 2024, which had rejected the petitioner's application under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS for return of his Maruti 5-Cross Smart Hybrid Zeta (Reg. No. TN 77 K 1380) seized in Crime No. 48 of 2024 (offences under Sections 273, 238 IPC r/w Sections 7(1), 20(2) of COTPA Act — alleged transport of banned tobacco products). The Trial Court had refused return solely for want of the petitioner's representation. Finding that the petitioner was the owner, that the vehicle could not be kept idle at the Police Station (seized 29.03.2024, per counsel), that he had no previous case and that no confiscation had been initiated, the Court granted interim custody on conditions: personal bond of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum; production of original RC Book (copy retained, original returned); no alteration or alienation; undertaking to produce the vehicle when required; and return subject to the result of any confiscation proceedings.

¶1

Crl.R.C. No. 144 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.c. No. 144 of 2025

¶7

Ratan Singh ..Petitioner Vs.

¶8

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem. Crime No. 48 of 2024. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1141 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur and consequently direct the respondent Police to hand over the case property i.e., Maruti 5-cross Smart Hybrid Zeta, Reg. NO. TN 77 K 1380 to the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner :: Mr.C.R. Gokul Visvas For Respondent :: Mr.S. Udayakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶10

1\5

¶11

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

¶12

Crl.R.C. No. 144 of 2025

¶13

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s application filed under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS for return of vehicle namely Maruti 5-Cross Smart Hybrid Zeta bearing Registration No. TN 77 K 1380.

¶14

An FIR was registered in Crime No. 48 of 2024 for offences under Sections 273, 238 IPC r/w Sections 7(1), 20(2) of COTPA Act on the allegation that the petitioner had transported banned tobacco products in the aforesaid vehicle.

¶15

During the course of investigation, the said vehicle was seized. The petitioner sought return of the vehicle and the same was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the Trial Court was neither wilful nor wanton; that the petitioner is not involved in any previous case; that the vehicle is kept idle at the Police Station ever since the date of seizure on 29.03.2024; that the value of the vehicle is getting diminished since it is subjected to vagaries of weather and that the petitioner is ready to abide by

¶17

2\5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.C. No. 144 of 2025

¶20

any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

¶21

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions would submit that the petitioner is not involved in any previous case and that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated so far.

¶22

In the light of the above submission, considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle cannot be kept idle at the Police Station, this Court is inclined to hand over interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur in Crl.M.P.No.1141 of 2024 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 is set aside. In view of the same, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle viz., Maruti 5-cross Smart Hybrid Zeta bearing Registration No. TN 77 K 1380 to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶24

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur;

¶25

3\5

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.R.C. No. 144 of 2025

¶28

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book along with a self-attested Photostat copy of the RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain a xerox copy of the same and return the original RC book to the petitioner;

¶29

(iii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner;

¶30

(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the court below.

¶31

(v) The return of property would be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings, if any.

28.01.2025