The need for judicious exercise of discretion by the court in cases involving seized vehicles and ongoing confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order in CMP No.547 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram dated 19.07.2021 in Crime No.487 of 2021.)

1. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 19.07.2021 made in Cr.M.P.No.547 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

2. The petitioner is the owner of Bajaj Pulsar RS 200 bearing Registration No.TN-37-DW-1417. In a case registered in Crime No.487 of 2021 under Section 4(1-a) of TNP Act (Transport), the respondent police, while at the time of investigation, recovered the said vehicle and as of now, the same is in the custody of the respondent police.

3. Pending investigation, the petitioner filed an application in Cr.M.P.No.547 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, praying interim custody of the vehicle.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, by order dated 19.07.2021 dismissed the said application on the ground that, in respect of the said vehicle, already confiscation proceedings are initiated and hence, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Challenging the said dismissal order, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an accused and also he is not having any knowledge in respect to the seizure of vehicle. He has further added that at the time of occurrence, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the accused took the vehicle and committed the alleged occurrence and hence the petitioner is no way held responsible for the alleged occurrence. Further, if the petition mentioned vehicle is exposed in the sunlight, the value of the vehicle become depreciated and therefore, this petition has been filed praying interim custody of the vehicle, by setting aside the order dated 19.07.2021 made in C.M.P.No.547 of 2021.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would contend that in respect to the petition mentioned vehicle, already confiscation proceedings are initiated and hence, the property now stated in the petition shall not be given to the petitioner.

7. Now, on going through the rival submissions made by the counsels appearing on either side with relevant records, it is true that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the above referred case. However, in the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, has clearly stated about the initiation of confiscation proceedings. In the said circumstances, in Oli Mohammed vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2015(2) L.W.(Crl.) 401 this Court after considering the following judgments in (i) Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose reported in AIR 1952 SC 369 (ii) In State of West Bengal vs. Union of India reported in 1964 (1) SCR 371 (iii) In Union of India vs. G.M.Kokil reported in AIR 1984 SC 1022 (iv) In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S.Guram reported in 1986 (4) SCC 447 (v) In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal reported in AIR 1991 SC 558 (vi) In R.S.Rahunath v. State of Karnataka reported in 1992 (1) SCC 335 (vii) In Vishin N.Kanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani reported in 2001 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 380 = AIR 2000 SC 2747 (viii) In Fitzgerald v. Champneys 1861 (30) L.J. Ch.777 at p.782 (ix) In Wood V.C., in London and Black Wall Rly v. Limehouse District Board of Works reported in 1856 (26) LJ 164 (x) In Siha Singh v. Sundan Singh reported in AIR 1921 Lah. 280 (xi) In Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Man Mohan Dev., reported in AIR 1966 SC 1931 came to the following conclusion:-

“72. Confiscation proceedings have already been initiated by the competent authority, under Section 14(4) of the Act, by issuance of a show cause and in the light of the guidelines issued in David-s case (cited supra), this Court is of th