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) 1756

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Kathiresan – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Madurai & Another – Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 11525 of 2023
Decided On : 11-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Lenin Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader.

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.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Seized Vehicle - Interim Custody Granted Based on Conditions

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the release of a seized vehicle. The vehicle was seized in connection with a criminal case and was presently in the custody of the first respondent. The petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner based on specified conditions, including a non-refundable payment, prohibition on alienation or encumbrance of the vehicle, and cooperation with the respondents' enquiry.

Issues: The main issue was the grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, pending confiscation proceedings initiated by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for a long period and that appropriate orders for interim custody should be passed by the Magistrate, subject to specified conditions.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, granting interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, with specified conditions. The court clarified that this decision 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 release the TATA ACE bearing Registration No.TN-22-BA-5901 seized by the second respondent on 09.04.2023, to the petitioner.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.60 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 of Government Leprosy Home, Y.Pudhupatti, Madurai (Savings Account No.10111535878, IFSC Code : SBIN0002246 State Bank of India, Othakadai Branch, Madurai). It will be a non-refundable payment. The Trust shall utilise the said amount for the benefits of the inmates of the Madurai Home.

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

c) 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.

d) 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. 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