M.Thanikachalam, J.: The petitioner, who is accused in Crl.No.985 of 2002 on the file of the respondent, appears to have involved in a prohibition offence, in which the Mahendra Van bearing registration No.TN 49 J 1569 was also involved which was seized. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, a petition was filed, which was dismissed and later confirmed by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter,, invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Crl.P.C., this petition has been filed.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposes the return of the vehicle on the ground that investigation is pending.

3. The fact that investigation is pending may not be a ground to refuse the return of the vehicle since return of the vehicle to the petitioner will not in any way hinder further investigation. Even if the vehicle is required, on notice, the petitioner may be directed to produce the vehicle, which cannot be denied. On the other hand, without returning vehicle if it is left exposed to hot sun and rain, only skeleton will remain at the end of the trial, which could not be used for any purpose. Without considering these facts, as if the vehicle is required for investigation, both the Courts below h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document