1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed praying to call for the records in connection with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.2823 of 2016 in P.R.C.No.7 of 2017, dated 02.11.2016 and set aside the same and consequently, permit the petitioner to sell his vehicle viz., “Bolero Jeep”, bearing Registration No.TN-57-AL-6690 in connection with a case in Crime No.467 of 2015, on the file of the respondent.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is arrayed as A6 in Crime No.467 of 2015, on the file of the respondent, pending as P.R.C.No.7 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul. The FIR in Crime No.467 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 302 IPC., based on the written complaint and charge has also been filed in P.R.C.No. 7 of 2016, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 and 212 of IPC., against seven accused, including the revision petitioner herein. The vehicle viz., “Bolero Jeep” (White Colour), bearing Registration No.TN-57-AL-6690, which was involved in the offence of murder case, was seized and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul in P.R.C.No.42 of 2015 on 14.05.2015. The Revision Petitioner has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.3256 of 2016, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., claiming ownership upon the above said seized vehicle and for return of the vehicle, as interim custody, during the pendency of P.R.C.No.7 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul and the same was ordered for interim custody in favour of the revision petitioner with a condition that to produce the original R.C. Book and also with an undertaking that not to sell the vehicle in question. Pursuant to the order of the said Court, the Revision petitioner got back the vehicle to his custody.

3. The Revision Petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.2823 of 2016, seeking permission to sell his vehicle viz., “Bolero Jeep”, (white colour) bearing Registration No.TN-57-AL-6690 and also to get back the original R.C.Book of the said vehicle. Having heard the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, vide its order, dated 02.11.2016, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present Revision is preferred before this Court, for the aforesaid relief. The respondent filed a written objection in this petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle and if he is allowed to sell the vehicle, he can get a price and if not till the end of the trial, the same would get very lower price, which would cause great hardship to the petitioner. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has relied on a decision of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., rep.by its Manager (Legal) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By the Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri Taluk and Another reported in [2011 (1) M.W.N (Cr.) 437] .

5. Perused the materials on record. Heard and considered the rival submissions advanced by either side.

6. Admittedly, the seized vehicle viz., “Bolero Jeep”, bearing Registration No.TN-57-AL-6690 was given to the petitioner, as interim custody, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, which belongs to the revision petitioner absolutely. According to the respondent, the said vehicle was used for commission of the offence by the accused in this case. On perusal of the impugned order of dismissal would reveal that the petitioner is one of the accused and the vehicle in question was used for the commission of offence, as contended by the respondent and the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the final order for the seized vehicle is to be passed by the concerned Court of Sessions at the conclusion of the trial and the committal Cour