N. Jaganathan vs State

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This Revision is directed against the order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri rejecting to return the vehicle Tata 407 Ex-Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 20 E 3064 to the petitioner for interim custody.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Tata 407 Ex-Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 20 E 3064 but is not an accused in Crime No. 51 of 2014 and the said case has been registered for the offences under section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and on a complaint given by one R.Kannan alleging that brandy bottles were transferred from Pondicherry.

According to the petitioner, if the seized Tata 407 Ex-Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 20 E 3064 is kept in the open place exposed to sun, rain and air and if it is continued, it will affect its utility and its value will be diminished and that the petitioner will be put to hardship and financial loss. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent fairly submits that the vehicle may be returned by imposing appropriate conditions.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, . In the said decision, in paragraphs 17 and 18, it has been observed as follows:-

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.

In case whether the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the 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 the 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 panchnama should be prepared.

A reading of the above said passages show that if the vehicle is kept in the police station, it will not be used by anybody and the utility of the vehicle will be affected and its value will be diminished.

The Court below before returning the vehicle in question shall strictly follow the procedure laid down in the above decision of the Apex Court.

In the light of the above observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the vehicle ( Tata 407 Ex-Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 20 E 3064) can be returned to the petitioner after imposing sufficient safeguards and conditions. Therefore, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle Tata 407 Ex-Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 20 E 3064 to the petitioner as interim custody on the petitioner complying the following conditions:

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

b) the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in any manner;

c) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the Court concerned; and

d) the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future, and

e) the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent police.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed.