Karthikeyan Vs State Rep by

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for records and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tiruvarur in Crl.M.P.No.2811 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 and direct the respondent Police to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 3471 having Chassis No.EXE363499 in Engine No.EXE248363.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Johnson Yuvaraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the

¶14

impugned o rder, dated 08.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2811 of 2024 passed by the

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.30 of 2025

¶17

learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur dismissing the petitioner's petition filed under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS for return of vehicle viz. , Ashok Leyland (Four Wheeler) bearing Reg.No.TN-69-B-3471.

¶18

2.The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which is said to have

¶19

been used by the accused for commission of offence under Sections 379 &

¶20

430 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.74 of 2024 for transporting one unit of

¶21

river sand. The petitioner had sought for return of the vehicle stating that ever

¶22

since the date of seizure i.e., on 01.06.2024, the vehicle is kept idle in an open

¶23

place and exposed to sun and rain. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced proof of ownership; that the case is pending investigation; and that the vehicle is liable for confiscation.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though

¶25

the seizure was made on 01.06.2024, the confiscation proceedings is yet to be

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.30 of 2025

¶28

initiated; that the petitioner is admittedly not an accused in this case; that the

¶29

interim custody of the vehicle may be handed over to the petitioner since

¶30

from the date of seizure, the vehicle is kept in open space exposed to the vagaries of weather, further retention of vehicles at the Police Station would make the vehicle unusable, and it would become a scrap; and that the petitioner is ready to comply with any condition that this Court may impose while granting return of vehicle.

¶31

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instructions

¶32

would submit that the petitioner is not an accused; that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated so far; and that there is no previous case against the petitioner.

¶33

5.In the light of the above submissions, this Court is of the view

¶34

that the vehicle cannot be allowed to be kept idle in the Police Station subject

¶35

to the vagaries of weather as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the

¶36

petitioner is admittedly the owner of the vehicle, not an accused, the interim

¶37