The pendency of confiscation proceedings is not a bar for granting interim custody of the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

The Petitioner has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Case before this Court being aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2015 in Cr.MP.No.6161 of 2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.6161 of 2015, on 21.11.2015, had among other things observed that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 31 AW 2399 (TATA ACE) was unable to be produced before the Court inasmuch as the Additional Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, had stated that the confiscation proceedings in favour of the Government were to be initiated and furthermore, it was observed that the aforesaid four wheeler was not produced and viewed in that perspective, the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C was ultimately dismissed.

3. Assailing the correctness, legality and validity of the dismissal order, passed by the trial court dated 21.11.2015, in Cr.M.P.No.6161 of 2015, the Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision Case before this Court as an aggrieved person mainly contending that of initiating confiscation proceedings is not a bar for the trial court to invoke the ingredients of Section 451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the petitioner had in fact produced all relevant documents to establish his ownership and if the vehicle in question is exposed to sun light and if it remains in open space, day-by-day, the condition of the vehicle will get deteriorated.

5. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to take a legal plea that since the case initiated before the trial Court was only at preliminary stage, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court for the release of vehicle in question.

6. Continuing further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that as a matter of fact, the confiscating authority can pursue his own proceedings and in fact, there is no bar in Law for the petitioner to seek the aid of ingredients of Section 451 of Cr.P.C.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that even after granting of interim custody of the vehicle in question, the confiscating authority can pursue his own proceedings irrespective of the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate.

8. To fortify his contention, that of 'pendency of confiscation proceedings cannot be a bar for granting interim custody of vehicle', the Learned counsel for the Petitioner cites a decision of this Court Sakthidevi Vs State by the Inspector of Police, Thittachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District reported in (2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) at page 634 and 635, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as under:

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 pendency 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 confis