The Revision Petitioner/Petitioner (Vehicle Owner)/third party has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order, dated 30.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2018 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.TN-60-E-4251 (Mahindra Pick Up Van) and she derived income through hiring of the above vehicle for transportation purposes of various agricultural items in and around Uthamapalayam to other distinctions and while so, on 10.01.2018, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2018 for the alleged offence under Section 379 IPC against four accused persons, on the basis of the complaint given by one Thanickachalam, who is a resident of the Gudalur Town stating that the accused were illegally loading banana Vaalai tharu belonging to the de-facto complainant on the vehicle of the petitioner and when he chased them, they ran away and based on the confessional statement given by the accused, it was revealed that one of the accused took the said vehicle from the petitioner stating he wanted the same for his personal and bona fide use.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the FIR or in any statement of accused, the name of the petitioner is not at all mentioned and the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged Crime and now, the said vehicle is kept at the respondent police station and the same is exposed to sun and rain and the life of the said vehicle is getting deteriorated. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam under Section 451 of Cr.P.C for interim custody of the vehicle, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam without considering the merits of the petition, has simply dismissed the petition.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the trial Court should have seen that the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-60-E-4251 Mahindra Pick Up Van and in reality, she is no way connected with the alleged offence. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner takes a plea that the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the Cr.M.P.No.211 of 2018 by passing the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018 and the trial Court had lost sight of the settled Law that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before the competent authority would not preclude a Court of Law from exercising its jurisdiction for the return of vehicle in terms of the ingredients of Section 457 of Cr.P.C

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is to be noted that after the amendment to Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the burden is shifted on the part of the owner of the vehicle to prove that he exercised due care in preventing the commission of the offence as per decision The Commissioner of Police, Madras V. R.Gothandapani reported in 1997 LW (Crl) Pg. 93.

7. In reality, before passing an order of confiscation pertaining to a vehicle, the appropriate authority is to provide reasonable opportunity to the owner of the vehicle, in the considered opinion of this Court.

8. It is to be remembered that for disposal of property in terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C., it is just and necessary that the property should be under the control of the Learned Magistrate. In fact, not only in respect of the property in regard to an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for commission of the offence that the Court is empowered under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., to pass an order for custody and disposal of property, pending trial, but even in respect of a property produced before the Court, the Court is empowered to make such an order as per the decision Om Rajnarain, Shivpuri V. R.M.Patil, reported in, 1978 CrLJ page 1432. (Bom-DB).

9. It i