BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Govindasamy – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai & Another – Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 11542 of 2023
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Mandamus - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - The court directed the 2nd respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions, citing the principle 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 pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle, a Mahindra Bolero (Maxi Truck), was seized in connection with a criminal case and was presently in the custody of the 2nd respondent. The vehicle was allegedly used for illegally transporting PDS rice.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the 2nd respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions, emphasizing that no purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle under the custody of the respondents.
Issues: The issue was the granting of interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, while the authorities were open to initiating confiscation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court directed the 2nd respondent to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions, clarifying that allowing the Writ Petition would not affect any confiscation proceedings that may be 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 respondents to entrust the interim custody of the petitioner''s vehicle by branding name Mahindra Bolero (Maxi Truck) vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 20 CD 8420, seized in connection with FIR No.44 of 2023 on the file of of the 2nd respondent Police.)
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.44 of 2023 registered on the file of the 2nd respondent.
3. The petition mentioned vehicle is presently in the custody of the 2nd 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 2nd 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.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for a long period and that appropriate orders for interim custody should b....
The court's decision was based on the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period, as established in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Des....
The court has the authority to grant interim custody of seized vehicles with specified conditions pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for a long period, and interim custody may be granted subject to specified conditions.
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 need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period and the authority of the court to grant interim custody of seized vehicles with specified conditions.
The court can grant interim custody of seized vehicles based on specified conditions, following the futility of keeping such vehicles at police stations for a long period.
Granting interim custody of seized vehicles and the conditions for such custody.
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 and the authority of the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for interim custody pending confisca....
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.