The owner of a vehicle involved in a prohibition case is entitled to safeguard the vehicle and must be heard by the police before any action is taken.

Muthukumaran, the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-31-AO-6005 (Tourist Motor Cab Taxi - Tata Indigo Car), seeks direction for interim custody of the property.

2. On a day, the said Muthukumaran's car was found with Pondicherry liquor bottles. The vehicle was seized. It is seen that there is no dispute that the vehicle belongs to Muthukumaran. It is also seen that the said vehicle is involved in a prohibition case. Such vehicle is liable for confiscation under the provisions of TNP Act. Action is being taken by the prohibition officer, namely, Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Cuddalore.

3. Muthukumaran approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore for return of the car to him. Since the car is liable for confiscation under Section 14(A) of TNP Act, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Thereafter, Muthukumaran filed Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2013. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore concurred with the view of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

4. Aggrieved, the Muthukumaran is before us.

5. In SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [2003 (1) CTC 175], it was held that vehicles seized by police should not be kept be at police station, the learned Magistrates should pass appropriate orders.

6. Muthukumaran is the owner of the vehicle. He is not the accused. But, his vehicle is involved in a prohibition case. If Muthukumaran is also involved in the commission of the offence or he is aware of his vehicle being used in committing the crime, then Muthukumaran has to forget his vehicle. But, it he is not aware of the fact that his vehicle has been used in the commission of the offence then he have a good case. But, in any case before passing any order, Muthukumaran is entitled for hearing. The Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Cuddalore before passing his order is bound to hear Muthukumaran especially when the vehicle stands in his name. 7. In the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI(supra), the vehicle has to be safeguarded. Otherwise in due course, it will be open to sky and subject to wear and tear, ultimately, it will become a scrap. So, vehicle is to be preserved police can take lawful action with regard to the car under the TNP Act. These aspects were not considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2261 of 2013 dated 28.06.2012 and the order of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.18 of 2013 dated 12.8.2013 are set aside. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.4 lakhs to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore. No property document shall be insisted upon. Petitioner will give undertaking to the said Magistrate that he will not change or dispose of the car in any way. Upon complying the said conditions the said Magistrate shall direct the Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Cuddalore to give interim custody of the car to the petitioner. It is made clear that the car is subject to the orders, if any passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Cuddalore. But, before passing any order, the said Additional Superintendent of Police must hear the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of.