BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Mariappan - Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin & Another - Respondent
W.P. (MD)No. 9888 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Mandamus - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - Release of Vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the authorities to release the interim custody of his seized vehicle, which was alleged to have been used for illegal transportation of ration rice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's vehicle had been seized by the police on allegations of illegal transportation of rice. The court acknowledged the petitioner's ownership of the vehicle and concerns regarding its deterioration while being kept in the open. The court granted the order for the release of the vehicle subject to certain conditions, including a cash security deposit and undertakings from the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicle and the petitioner's right to interim custody pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant the order for release of the vehicle based on the petitioner's ownership, concerns about the vehicle's condition, and the need for interim custody pending trial. The court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance and prevent misuse of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court ordered the release of the petitioner's vehicle subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to entrust the interim custody of the petitioner's vehicle by branding name TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 75U 2210 seized in connection with FIR No.70 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent Police.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to entrust the interim custody of the petitioner's vehicle TATA Sumo bearing Reg. No.TN 75U 2210 seized by the second respondent on 08.05.2022.
2. Heard Mr.V.Malaiyendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the aforementioned vehicle. According to the petitioner, on 08.05.2022, the respondent police seized the above-mentioned vehicle of the petitioner, alleging that the vehicle was used to illegally transport the ration rice and registered a case in Crime No. 70 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w. Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was never involved in any illegal transportation of Rice as alleged by the Police and he has not committed any prior criminal offence. According to the petitioner, the seized vehicle is now being kept in the open place and due to exposure of sun and rain and the vagaries of nature, the vehicle will lose its value and may, ultimately become a wreck and worthless. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking for release of the said vehicle.
6. The petitioner has also given a representation on 09.05.2022 to the respondents seeking for release of the said seized vehicle. According to the petitioner, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents till date. As rightly contended by the petitioner, if the vehicle, which was seized by the second respondent, is kept in the open place, it will not be useful to anyone in the near future and if it is continued to remain in the open, it has to face the vagaries of nature and ultimately will become a wreck and worthless. However, whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or not can be adjudicated only after trial before the Criminal Court. Till such time, the vehicle cannot be kept idle. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an order as sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions by the petitioner.
(i) Since it is the case involving seizure of PDS Rice, the petitioner cannot give security by way of bond, instead will have to give cash security. Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with the first respondent within a period of two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) the petitioner shall give an unconditional undertaking to the first respondent that he shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in question without permission of the Jurisdictional Magistrate till the completion of the confiscation proceedings
(iii) the petitioner shall not change the colour and scheme of the vehicle.
(iv) the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activities.
(v) before releasing the vehicle, the police authority shall take photographs of the vehicle at the cost of the petitioner.
(vi) The petitioner shall produce all xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle to the first respondent. If the petitioner concerned is an agreement holder and the R.C book is with the financier, he or she can be permitted to produce the photocopies of the relevant documents and if the vehicle is a new one, sales invoice
The court has the authority to grant interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, subject to specified conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse.
The court considered the potential loss of value of the seized vehicle if kept idle and granted the release subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent future breach of the undert....
The court has the authority to grant a writ of mandamus for the release of a seized vehicle, subject to specified conditions to safeguard against potential misuse or loss of value.
The court has the discretion to order the release of a seized vehicle, balancing the interests of the petitioner with the need to ensure compliance with the law.
The court's decision was based on the legal principle that interim custody of seized vehicles can be granted by the court, subject to specified conditions, pending confiscation proceedings.
The court emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period, as highlighted in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others....
The court emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and the authority of the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for interim custody pending confisca....
The court balanced the petitioner's request for release of the seized vehicle with the need for security and cooperation with the investigation, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the specified....
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.