The main legal point established is that pending confiscation proceedings alone cannot justify the denial of a request for the return of a seized vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

1. The revision petitioner has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Nagapattinam dated 8.2.2011 in Crl. MP. No. 472 of 2011 in Crime No. 314 of 2010, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of the return of the vehicle, viz., Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN-51-P-2826.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Tata Sumo Car and she is not an accused in the case and only the husband of the revision petitioner is an accused who has been implicated for the offencs under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of TNP Act and under Section 5 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on the ground of initiation of the confiscation proceedings. It is contended that this Court held in number of matters that pending confiscation proceedings is not a bar for the return of vehicle.

3. Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the vehicle involved in this matter was seized for the commission of the offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the confiscation proceedings were already initiated and the same is pending as on date. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 1156 of 2009 David v. Shakthivel, Inspector of Police-cum-Station House Officer dated 8.1.2010. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Division Bench has held that the granting the relief of interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C., in respect of the vehicle involved in the Prohibition offences is not automatic one and the spirit of the provision under Section 14(4) of the should be taken note of and the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised judiciously. It is also pointed out that certain guidelines were also stipulated by the Division Bench in the said decision.

4. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward on either side and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Nagapattinam.

5. At the outset, it is be stated that the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and she has not been implicated in this case as an accused. It is seen that the husband of the revision petitioner has been implicated and the vehicle was seized on the allegation of commission of the prohibition offence. The perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is stated by the learned Magistrate that the confiscation proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the vehicle involved in this matter and the same is pending. It is further observed by the learned Magistrate that the vehicle was also not produced before the Court below. Therefore, the learned Magistrate mainly dismissed the petition filed for the return of the interim custody of the vehicle on the ground of the pending confiscation proceedings. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any other valid reasons to reject the petition. It is needless to state that mere pendancy of the confiscation proceedings is not a bar for granting the relief of interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the vehicle was seized as early as on 31.10.2010 and the confiscation proceedings are pending even as on date. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no progress in the confiscation proceedings. On the other hand, the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain resulting in the deterioration of the condition day-by-day and in such an event, it is needless to state that the petitioner would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss.

6. It is also relevant to note that this Court