BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Mohamed Rafeek - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Revenue Officer, Trichy & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 13095 of 2016
Decided On : 26-07-2016
Seizure - Essential Commodities Act - TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 - Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's two-wheeler was seized on the allegation of transporting essential commodities, and the petitioner sought its release, citing potential damage to the vehicle if kept in open yard.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the release of the seized vehicle subject to specified conditions, considering the potential damage and the petitioner's representation.
Issues: Seizure of vehicle, potential damage to the vehicle, release conditions
Ratio Decidendi: The court can order the release of seized property if it deems necessary to prevent damage, and may impose conditions for release.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to release the seized vehicle under specified conditions.
Heard both sides.
2. By consent, the main Writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of TVS XL Super two- wheeler bearing registration No.TN-45-BY-6724. On 02.11.2015, when he went to purchase grocery items at Trichy, the 2nd respondent/Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, Crime Investigation Department, Trichy, seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport 2 bags of rice (each containing 50 Kgs.) and after seizure of the vehicle, a case in Cr.No.331 of 2015 was registered by the 2nd respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent produced the vehicle before the 1st respondent/District Revenue Officer, Trichy.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that soon after the seizure of the vehicle in question, on 16.02.2016, he submitted a detailed representation before the 1st respondent/District Revenue Officer, Trichy, seeking release of his vehicle. However, his representation till date has not met with any positive response.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that if the TVS XL Super two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-45-BY-6724 is exposed to hot sun and rain and if it is kept in the open yard, then the seized vehicle will lose its value and also cover rust and resultantly, it will become unfit to ply on road. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the order dated 28.06.2016, in W.P. (MD) No. 11493 of 2016, passed by this Court between R. Rajeev Vs The District Revenue Officer, Nagercoil and another, wherein at paragraph No.5, it was observed as under:-
“5. At this stage, it comes to be known that this Court on 17.05.2013, in W.P. (MD) No. 14224 of 2013 at paragraph Nos.8 to 10 had observed as follows:-
“8. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to have submitted his representation dated 02.05.2013 addressed to the 2nd 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 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 sized vehicle cannot be kept either in the Police Station or within a precincts of R.D.Os. 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st respondent is directed to release the seized vehicle
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.