SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1323

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Rajapandi – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Madurai & Another – Respondents
W.P (MD)No. 4642 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Balaji, Advocate. For the Respondents:G. Suriyananth, Additional Government Pleader, R2, B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

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 v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - The court directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner with specific conditions, citing the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the interim custody of the petitioner's vehicle seized in connection with a specific FIR.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents served no purpose and directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specific conditions. The court clarified that allowing the writ petition would not affect any confiscation proceedings initiated by the authorities.

Issues: The main issue was the grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by 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 v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specific conditions, while clarifying that it would not affect any confiscation proceedings initiated by the authorities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to entrust the interim custody of the petitioner''s vehicle by branding name TATA ACE bearing Registration No. TN-59-AE-0938 seized in connection FIR No.2 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent Police.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent.

2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.2 of 2023 registered on the file of the second respondent.

3. The petition mentioned vehicle is presently in the custody of the first respondent. The vehicle is said to have been used for illegally transporting PDS rice.

4. It is of course open to the respondent authority to initiate confiscation proceedings. In this case, we are concerned only with the issue of granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.

5. No purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat) has held as follows:-

“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.

6. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost in the bank Account Number of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Srivilliputhur (Ac No.233302000000100, IFSC Code – IOBA0002333), Indian Overseas Bank, Athikulam, Senkulam). It will be a nonrefundable payment.

b)The learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar is directed to withdraw the aforesaid deposited amount and spend the same for the welfare of Lalitha, the captive elephant now in the custody of the Forest Department, Virudhunagar. It can be towards the purchase of nutritious diet / medicines / Mahouts'' salary or any other measure for the benefit of the elephant.

c) The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle till the proceedings are completed.

d) The petitioner shall produce all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicle. If the petitioner is an agreement holder, he can produce the relevant xerox copies.

e) As and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicle in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.

7. The petitioner''s counsel submits that the petitioner''s name is not figuring in the R.C.Book, because he is only an agreement holder. The original documents are with the financier. The respondents nevertheless are directed to return the same to the petitioner upon fulfilment of the conditions.

8. Upon completion of these formalities, the respondents shall grant interim custody of the vehicle forthwith to the petitioner without any delay. If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled to interim custody of the vehicle in future. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. I make it clear that allowing of this writ petition will not have any bearing on the confiscation proceedings that may be initiated by the authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top