Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3916
Madras High Court
K.N. BASHA, J.
Gajendran
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID, Madurai
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.897 of 2008
Decided on : 30-10-2008
For the Petitioner:K. Jeganathan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Rajendran, Government Advocate, (Crl.Side).
Ratio:
a. Magistrate Courts are to be sensitive to the ratio and intention behind the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding return of the seized article and implement it.
b. Even if the seized article is not produced before the Magistrate Court, the Magistrate has to enquire about seizure and pass orders regarding its return to its owner.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Secs.451, 482-Return of seized article-Lorry-Seizure-Not produced before Magistrate-Petition for return filed-Returned for non-production of vehicle before Magistrate-Petitioner approached High Court-Held, Magistrates to implement directions of Supreme Court in its letter and spirit-Non-Production of vehicle in Court is not a ground for refusal of prayer-Vehicles kept idle looses its value-Directions issued to Magistrate to consider the petition afresh in the light of directions of Supreme Court.
The respondent police has not produced the vehicle before the learned Magistrate but on the other hand sent intimation to the District Collector in respect of the seizure of the vehicle and also in respect of keeping the vehicle in his custody. This Court is of the considered view that in view of the above said admitted facts, the learned Magistrate ought not to have returned the petition merely on the ground that the vehicle was not yet produced before the Court. The learned Magistrate ought to have ascertained the actual state of affairs from the respondent police. Para 9
The powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. Para 10
The vehicle of the petitioner was seized as early as on 14.08.2008 and the vehicle was kept idle in the custody of the respondent police and also exposed to sun and rain and further there is also reasonable apprehension of missing important parts of the vehicle and as a result, it is no doubt that the condition of the vehicle would be deteriorated day-by-day and in such event, the petitioner would be put in to great hardship and irreparable loss. Para 12
The learned Magistrates, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return of properties, namely, valuable articles, currency notes and the vehicle, should give effect to the principles and guidelines stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited Supra in its letter and spirit and the learned Magistrates should strictly follow the principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of return of properties. Para 13
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking for the relief of setting aside the order dated 20.10.2008 in Crl.M.P.No. Unnumbered of 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District and direct the respondent to return of the vehicle Mini van bearing Registration No. TN 57-M-5109 said to have been seized by the respondent police.
2. It is seen that the petitioner has been implicated in this case as A-4 for the alleged offence under Sections 6 (4) of T.N.S.C.(RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1) (a) (ii) of the E.C. Act, on the allegation of transport of 60 bags of 50 kg each PDS rice. It is the further case of the prosecution that the vehicle owned by the petitioner, namely, Mini van bearing Registration No. TN 57-M-5109 has been seized by the respondent police on 14.08.2008 at about 8 a.m. at Vadipatti, Dindigul Road, after the respondent police intercepted the said vehicle. It is seen that the vehicle was seized along with 60 bags of PDS rice. Thereafter, it is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, seeking for the relief of return of his vehicle, Mini van bearing Registration No. TN 57-M-5109 and the learned Magistrate returned the petition by making the docket order dated 20.10.2008 on the ground that the property not yet remanded in this case.
3. Mr. K. Jeganathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate ought not to have returned the petition and the impugned docket order to the effect that the petition returned on the ground of property not yet remanded in this case is untenable in law and against the principles and guidelines stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai -Vs-State of Gujarat With SLP (Crl.) No. 2755 of 2002 C.M.Mudaliar -Vs- State of Gujarat case, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified in the subsequent decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1440 in respect of the very same case clarified to the effect that there may not be any necessity for producing the vehicle before the court for entertaining the petition for return of the vehicle. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of returning the petition filed by the petitioner for return of the vehicle is liable to be set aside and the learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the petition in accordance with law and as per the guidelines stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943 and further clarified in the subsequent decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1440.
5. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused as A-4 in this case for the alleged transport of PDS rice bags in his vehicle, Mini van bearing Registration No. TN 57-M-5109. It is submitted that the said vehicle was intercepted by the respondent police on 14.08.2008 and the respondent police sezied the vehicle along with 60 bags of PDS rice. It is submitted that thereafter the respondent police sent intimation to the District Collector in respect of the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate would further submitted that as on date, the vehicle of the petitioner, namely, Mini van bearing Registration No. TN 57-M-5109 is in the custody of the respondent police.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the
