BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Yakoob - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District - Respondents.
W.P. (MD) No.14177 of 2016
Decided On : 05-08-2016
Seizure - Release of Vehicle - TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - [Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955]
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner's lorry was seized on the allegation of transporting PDS Rice. The Petitioner sought release of the vehicle, citing potential loss of value due to prolonged seizure.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the release of the seized vehicle subject to specified conditions, considering the potential detriment to the petitioner's interest and the necessity for timely adjudication proceedings.
Issues: Seizure and release of the vehicle, potential loss of value due to prolonged seizure, compliance with specified conditions for release.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity for timely release of seized vehicles to prevent loss of value and directed the release of the vehicles subject to specified conditions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for release of the seized vehicles.
Heard both sides.
2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2.
4. According to the Petitioner, he is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. No.KA-12-A-2316 and that the Second Respondent/The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Department, Dindigul had seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle in question was used to transport 187 bags of PDS Rice (each containing 50 Kgms of rice). After seizure of the vehicle, the Second Respondent registered a case against the Petitioner and nine others, in Crime No.146 of 2016, for the offence alleged under Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and produced the vehicle before the First Respondent. In this connection, the Petitioner had sent a detailed representation to the First Respondent on 5.7.2016(after seizure of the vehicle) seeking for release of the vehicle in question. However, the vehicle has not been released till date.
5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that if the vehicle is exposed to hot sun and rain and also when it is kept in open yard, it will lose its value. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief cited supra.
6. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No..KA-12-A-2316 is not yet released by the First Respondent, at this stage, this Court following the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14224 of 2013 between K.Gangadaran vs. (i) the District Collector, Coimbatore District and another, whereby and where-under at paragraphs-8 to 10, it is observed and laid down as under:
8. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to have submitted his representation dated 02.05.2013 addressed to the second respondent praying for handing over of the pick up Mini Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 in question.
9. One cannot ignore an important fact that a Judicial Magistrate can pass an order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Only after physical or symbolical production of seized material before the Court and that too only after hearing both sides. It cannot be gainsaid that such an order is final as between the parties. A party affected by such an order is entitled to file a Revision before the Competent Forum. For disposal of property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the property should be in the control of Magistrate. The orders to be passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate are under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., which are during the pendency of trial or enquiry.
10. Be that as it may and taking note of the fact that the seized vehicle cannot be kept either in the Police Station or within a precincts of R.D.O.'s Office etc., and also bearing in mind an important fact that such keeping of seized vehicle for a long time will be detriment to the interest of the petitioner, this Court, in the interest of justice, directs the first respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Mini Pick up Van bearing Registration No.KL 9 AD 3334, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions:-
(a) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in cash before the first respondent;
(b) The petitioner is directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle;
(c) The petitioner is to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will cause production of the vehicle in question before the competent/concerned respondents (as the case may be) as and when called for and further, he will not alienate the vehicle in question till the appropriate proceedings initiated are completed;
(d) On compliance of the above conditions, the first respondent is directed to release the seized vehicle bearing registration No.KL 9 AD 3334 to the petitioner (if he is in custody and possession), within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(e) The first respondent is di
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.