Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 21.01.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.

3. The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016 dated 21.01.2016 in Cr.No.519 of 2016 (filed by the Petitioner/Owner of the vehicle under Section 451(1) & 457 Cr.P.C.) had observed the following:

“On perusal of records and the documents. The Peralam Police Station has registered case in Cr.No.519 of 2016 u/s.4(1)(aa) r/w.4(1-a) TNP Act & 14(A) TNP Act & Transport. The case property involved in commission of offence has not produced before this Court and the Inspector of Police, Peralam has stated in the special report filed along with remand report, that Confiscations steps has been taken, to confiscate the vehicle. Since the offence u/s.4(1)(aa) r/w.4(1-A) TNP Act & 14(A) TNP Act is exclusively triable by Hon'ble Sessions Court, in the interest of justice, this petition is dismissed.”

4. Assailing the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.312 of 2016, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the trial Court is bad in Law.

5. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-50-L-8802 (Hero Honda Splendour Plus) was not directed to be handed over to the Petitioner by virtue of the impugned order because of the latent and patent reason passed by the trial Court to the effect that since the offence under Section 4(1) (aa) r/w.4(1-A) TNP Act & 14(A) TNP Act is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the Petition filed in this behind is came to be dismissed and the view taken by trial Court in dismissing the Petition for return of two wheeler in question is not in consonance with Law.

6. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that Section 4(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, enjoins as under:

“4. Prohibition of the manufacture of, traffic in, and consumption of liquor and intoxicating drugs-(1) whoever-(aa)imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor exceeding fifty litres but less than one hundred litres;

Further, Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act speaks as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (3), the Collector or other Prohibition Officer in-charge of the district or any other officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf is satisfied that an offence has been committed against this Act and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for such offence, he may, without prejudice to any other punishment to which the offender is liable under this Act, order confiscation of any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle used in the commission of such offence:

Provided that, before passing an order of confiscation, the owner or the person from whom such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is seized, shall be given-

(i) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle;

(ii) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time, not exceeding fourteen days, as may be specified in the notice, against the grounds of confiscation; and

(iii) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter:

Provided further that the owner or the person from whom such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is seized shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, an amount not exceeding the market price of such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle.”

7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 08.01.2010 in Contp. Petition No.1156 of 2009 between David V. Shakthivel, Inspector of Police-cum-Station House Officer, wherein at par