Balaraman Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police

BNSS to call for records in connection with the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in C.M.P. No. 678 of 2025 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai, Coimbatore District, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to return the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 25 BK 3979 Bolero Pickup to the petitioner.

¶13

1\6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.R.C. No. 2853 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner :: Mr.A.K. Manikkam for Mr.T. Saravanan For Respondent :: Mr.R. Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s

¶19

application seeking return of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 25 BK 3979 seized during the course of investigation in Crime No. 318 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the

¶21

owner of the vehicle in question and explosive substances were transported in the said vehicle for illegal sale in Kerala. The vehicle was seized during the course of investigation.

¶22

The petitioner sought for return of vehicle before the

¶23

learned Magistrate by filing C.M.P. No. 678 of 2025, which was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that investigation is pending and that

¶24

2\6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.C. No. 2853 of 2025

¶27

the petitioner had failed to produce the mandatory Certificate of Safety (Form CE-1) as prescribed under Part 6 of Schedule V of Explosives Rules, 2008.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has a valid licence; that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had transported 1825 kilograms of explosives instead of 1250 Kgs being the quantity permissible under the licence; that the petitioner had valid licence to transport it to Kerala and therefore, since the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, interim custody of the vehicle may be handed over to him on stringent conditions. He would further submit that the petitioner has no bad antecedents.

¶29

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side ), per contra, would submit that the investigation is pending ; that the petitioner had admitted of having transported explosives illegally to Kerala and therefore, he is guilty of the offence; that the vehicle was used for the said purpose and if the vehicle is returned, the petitioner is likely to commit similar offence.

¶30

3\6

¶31

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

¶32

Heard both sides.

¶33

Crl.R.C. No. 2853 of 2025

¶34

Admittedly, the petitioner has licence to transport

¶35

explosives. The case of the prosecution is that he had transported explosives beyond the permissible limit as per the licence. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he has got no bad antecedents. The vehicle is lying idle and is subjected to vagaries of weather.

¶36