S. Parimala vs The Sub Inspector of Police

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The above revision filed u/s. 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 08.01.2014 in Cr.MP.No.3691/2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.

Heard Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] for the respondent. I have also perused the documents made available on record.

The petitioner filed an application before the Court concerned seeking for the return of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-32-6966 which was seized in connection with Cr.NO.118/2013 for the offences u/s. 4[1][aaa] read with 4[1-A]ii TNP Act, 1937 and 5 and 6 of R.S. Rules, on the file of the respondent Police. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused. The petitioner''s husband has been arrayed as A1 in the said case and it appears that there are 10 accused who have appeared before the Court and 3 accused are absconding out of the total 13 accused. The petitioner has already obtained the interim custody of the vehicle. She filed a petition for the return of the original RC Book. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was not involved in the commission of the offences alleged to have taken place. But the vehicle was seized by the respondent police on 04.03.2013 pursuant to an alleged confession statement recorded from the petitioner''s husband/A1 alleging that he had purchased the vehicle from and out of the funds earned by committing prohibition offences. The Trial Court earlier had returned the vehicle to the petitioner with a direction to deposit the original Registration Certificate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner is a third party and not the wife of A1, then the Court below would have returned the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The fact being that the petitioner is not an accused and she being the owner of the vehicle in her own right, she is entitled to the return of the original Registration Certificate Book. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, in Cr.MP.No.3691/2014 dated 08.01.2014 is hereby set aside.

The Court below is hereby directed to return the original Registration Certificate of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-32-T-6966 after retaining the attested Photostat copy of the same, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle nor create any hypothecation based on the return of the original Registration Certificate. Apart from that, the petitioner shall also comply with the other conditions which have been imposed by the Trial Court at the time when the vehicle was returned. It is also made clear that the above order shall not confer any benefit in the criminal case which is said to be pending against her husband/A1 and others. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.