The main legal point established is the application of legal precedents and guidelines in determining the release of seized property, and the imposition of specific conditions to prevent misuse and ensure safekeeping.

This criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Vellore District in C.M.P.No.2028 of 2017 by order dated 12.07.2017.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his lorry bearing Reg. No. TN 23 F 0997 was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police/respondent, Ambur Taluk Police Station and the respondent has produced the same before the Court below in C.C.No.233 of 2017 for the offences under Section 379, 430 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had moved the Trial Court for return of property under Sections 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was heard and decided by the Court below by the impugned order dated 12.07.2017, wherein the learned Judge had rejected the said application stating that since the petitioner being the second accused in Crime No.233 of 2017 and only the driver of the lorry has been arrested and the petitioner/owner of the vehicle who is also the second accused escaped during the occurrence of crime and after getting anticipatory bail, he surrendered before the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate and therefore considering these aspects, the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate had rejected the application.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2003 (1) CTC 175 in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat wherein the learned counsel has relied upon the following paragraphs:-

“Vehicles

15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.773 of 2016 dated 03.02.2017 in the matter of Ravichandran vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vallioor Police Station. By relying upon the above two