The court emphasized that the possibility of confiscation or ongoing confiscation proceedings should not be the sole ground for denying interim custody of the vehicle to the owner.

1. This Revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Cr.M.P. No.804 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 declining to return the vehicle involved in the Crime on the ground that since Confiscation proceedings have been taken, the vehicle cannot be returned to the owner of the vehicle.

2. The Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle namely TATA ACE 22100 MMWB and according to the Petitioner, the vehicle was forcibly taken by the Second Respondent-Police from his house. Later he came to know that the said vehicle is said to have been involved in the case in Crime No.14 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Section 4(1) (aa) r/w 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for carrying 110 litres of illicit liquor in the said vehicle. The Petitioner is arrayed as Accused in this case and he filed a Petition under Section 457 r/w 451, Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that it is kept in open space exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the objections on the Respondent’s side raised, dismissed the said Petition holding that it was not feasible to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the Petitioner as Confiscation proceedings was in progress. The said order was challenged in the present Criminal Revision case.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to properly consider the scope of the powers conferred under Sections 457 r/w 451 Cr.P.C. and that on an erroneous impression that no interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to anybody claiming to be the owner or the person entitled to the custody thereof, if proceedings for confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is under contemplation. Therefore, he would contend that the order is liable to be set aside and the relief sought for by the Revision Petitioner should be granted.

4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Cri.O.P. No. 5278 of 2007 dated 09.07.2010 in Sundaram Finance Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri Taluk and another, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 437. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to yet another order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sakthidevi v. State by the Inspector of Police, Thitachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District, Crl.R.C. No.501 of 2011.

5. In the aforesaid decisions, the learned Single Judge after referring to the scope of the provision of Sections 451 & 457, Cr.P.C. and a number of judgments of this Court including the case in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC) : AIR 2003 SCC 638, observed in clear terms that the possibility of confiscation of the vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or even the fact that the proceedings for confiscation under the said provision has been initiated and is pending will not be the sole ground on which the Court can exercise the discretion under Section 451 or 457, Cr.P.C. against the person claiming to be the owner or otherwise entitled to the custody of the vehicle. It has also been held that entrusting the interim custody of the vehicle to the person shall not in any way come in the way of the Government or the Prohibition Officer passing an order of confiscation; that the interim custody granted by the Court would be construed only as the custody of the Court and the person to whom interim custody is granted shall hold it on behalf of the Court and that while granting such interim custody, conditions can be imposed to the effect that the person seeking interim custody should give an undertaking to handover the vehicle to the Collector or Prohibition Officer passing Confisca