Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
Muthu Raman - Appellant
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 10468 of 2015
Decided On: 14.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:M. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: C. Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161, 451 – Registration – Seizure – Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 31.03.2015 in Crl. M.P. No. 530 of 2015 rendered by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. – Petitioner is the owner of Tavera car bearing Registration No. TN-01-AG-5028 which he had entrusted to Veeyes Travels for hire. It appears that the said car was rented out on contract by Veeyes Travels to the Central Industrial Security Force for the use of their officers in the Ennore Port Trust. The said car was being driven by one Rajan and on 11.05.2013, his brother-in-law, one Manavalan is said to have taken the vehicle along with a gang to attack one Adalarasu. The gang attacked Adalarasu on 11.05.2013 at about 11.45 p.m., but, he survived the attack. – Therefore, a case in Cr. No. 327 of 2013 was registered by the respondent for offences under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC. – The car was seized by the police near a Railway track in Perambur and it has been made as a subject matter of the property in Cr. No. 327 of 2013. – Held, It is not necessary to mark the car as a material object. – It would be sufficient if the Police Officer gives evidence about the disclosure made by the accused and the fact discovered by him pursuant to the disclosure, namely, seizure of the car. – Investigating Officer can mark the seizure memo and mahazar attested by the independent witnesses for proving the factum of seizure of the car. – It is sufficient to mark the photograph of the car and state in the witness box that the car has been returned to Muthuraman, the owner of the car, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in this Criminal Original Petition. – After the return of the property to the claimant, the Police can record a further statement under Section 161 about the handing over the property pursuant to Court order. – If the recipient of the property is available at the time of trial, he can be examined as a witness to prove the factum of having received the property pursuant to Court order and he can also speak about its disposal. – A copy of the order passed in this petition can also be marked as proof of the fact that such an order has been passed. Courts must evolve pragmatic procedures for mitigating the sufferings of common citizens and should not live in stone age. – After all the trial in this case may take years and to expect the owner to preserve the vehicle till then would amount to travesty of justice. – In Special enactments like Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, a separate procedure for confiscation of vehicles etc is given. – In such cases the trial Court should be circumspect while passing return of property order. – Petition Allowed
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 31.03.2015 in Crl. M.P. No. 530 of 2015 rendered by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is the owner of Tavera car bearing Registration No. TN-01-AG-5028 which he had entrusted to Veeyes Travels for hire. It appears that the said car was rented out on contract by Veeyes Travels to the Central Industrial Security Force for the use of their officers in the Ennore Port Trust. The said car was being driven by one Rajan and on 11.05.2013, his brother-in-law, one Manavalan is said to have taken the vehicle along with a gang to attack one Adalarasu. The gang attacked Adalarasu on 11.05.2013 at about 11.45 p.m., but, he survived the attack. Therefore, a case in Cr. No. 327 of 2013 was registered by the respondent for offences under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The car was seized by the police near a Railway track in Perambur and it has been made as a subject matter of the property in Cr. No. 327 of 2013. On coming to know of this, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 994 of 2013 for return of the said car and the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 18.06.2013, gave interim custody of the car to the petitioner on the following conditions:
"a. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) along with one surety for a like sum.
b. The petitioner shall take photograph of the properties which should be signed by both the petitioner and the investigation officer and produce the photograph and negative before this court.
c. Further detailed punchanama incorporating all the details of the properties should be prepared and signed by both the investigation officer and the petitioner.
d. The petitioner shall not sell, change, alter or otherwise dispose of the properties till the disposal of the main case.
e. The petitioner shall produce the property before this court as and when directed by this court.
f. The original R.C. book shall be retained in this court."
3. The investigation in this case is still under progress and no final report has been filed. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is around 80 years old and maintaining the car is a serious liability for him, as he has no income to maintain himself and that apart, since the make of the car is of the year 2009, it is frequently developing repairs. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in Crl. M.P. No. 530 of 2015 before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, for permission to return the RC Book and permit him to dispose of the car, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 31.03.2015, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is still under progress and therefore, it may not be desirable to return the car.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the car and he is not in any way involved in the offence. The car was taken away by the driver's relative and was used for the commission of offence, over which this petitioner had no control. Based on the confession statement of the arrested accused, Section 27 recovery of the car was effected.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to mark the car as a material object. It would be sufficient if the Police Officer gives evidence about the disclosure made by the accused and the fact discovered by him pursuant to the disclosure, namely, seizure of the car. The Investigating Officer can mark the seizure memo and mahazar attested by the independent witnesses for proving the factum of seizure of the car. It is sufficient to mark the photograph of the car and state in the witness box that the car has been returned to Muthuraman, the owner of the car, pursuant to the order pass
