2023 Supreme(Mad) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Kannan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 387 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2023
For the Petitioner:S.N. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.side).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for the return of seized vehicles and the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles idle for a long time.
Headnote:
Vehicles - Criminal Revision Case - Sections 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the custody and return of seized vehicles, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of Gujarat. The court emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles idle for a long time and allowed the Criminal Revision Case to set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent police to return the vehicle to the owner with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Case challenging the order dismissing the application seeking interim custody of a seized vehicle. The respondent police had registered a case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and seized the vehicle in connection with the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature of the offence, the fact that the vehicle was not involved in any other similar case previously, and the need to avoid keeping the vehicle idle, and allowed the Criminal Revision Case to set aside the impugned order, directing the respondent police to return the vehicle to the owner with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the custody and return of the seized vehicle, and the validity of the impugned order dismissing the application for interim custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles idle for a long time and the authority of the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for the return of seized vehicles.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondent police was directed to return the vehicle to the owner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4300 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.)
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4300 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur.
2. The respondent police registered a case against this petitioner along with two other persons viz., Ponramesh & Ramesh in Crime No.467 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which, the petitioner is the second accused. The respondent police arrested them and seized 102 kilograms of Banned Tobacco Products. While arresting, the respondent police also seized the Omni Van bearing registration No. TN-36-AF-9776, belonging to the petitioner/A2.
3. The petitioner filed an application seeking interim custody of the subject vehicle before the Judical Magistrate, Sulur in CMP.No.4300 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order without assigning valid reasons. Against which, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle under the custody of respondent police and if the vehicle is kept for a long time in the open space, it would cause damage to the vehicle. The petitioner is ready to give appropriate guarantee as well as security for return of vehicle and also he will produce the vehicle, as and when required either before the respondent police or before the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to return the Omni Van bearing registration No.TN-36-AF-9776 and he is ready to obey any condition imposed on him by this Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police registered a case against this petitioner along with two other persons viz., Ponramesh & Ramesh in Crime No.467 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which the petitioner is the second accused and seized the Omni Van and produced before the Court and also consented that the vehicle has not involved in the similar type of case previously. There is no antecedent in this regard against this petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.
7. On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the respondent police registered a case against this petitioner along with two other persons viz., Ponramesh & Ramesh in Crime No.467 of 2022 on 07.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which the petitioner is the second accused. Further, on perusal of FIR, it is seen that on 07.08.2022, on receiving secret information about illegal transportation of Narcotic Substance, the respondent police has conducted a vehicle checkup near Perumal Koil, Appanayakampatti, Coimbatore and caught the persons and on enquiry, the respondent police found possessions of 18 Kgs of Ganesh, 48 Kgs of Hans, 60 Kgs of Vimal, 8 Kgs of Coollip and 14 Kgs of V1 and seized the Omni van bearing registration No.TN-36-AF-9776.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Lave Petition (Crl.)2745 of 2022 dated 01.10.2002 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder.
Vehicles
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