BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Thangapandian – Petitioner
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi and Another – Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 5567 of 2024
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Mandamus - Release of Seized Vehicle - Interim Custody Granted
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the release of their seized Ashok Leyland Tanker Lorry used for illegally transporting PDS rice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that keeping the seized vehicle under the custody of the respondents served no purpose and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner while the confiscation proceedings may be initiated by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period serves no purpose and directed the first respondent to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditions.
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 specified conditions, clarifying that it would not affect any confiscation proceedings initiated by the authorities.
JUDGMENT :
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to forth with to release the petitioner's Ashok Leyland Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-94-Z-8023 from their custody on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2024.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No. 08 of 2022 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 Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held as follows:
6. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to grant interim custody of the said vehicle to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
(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.
8. 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 court applied the principle that keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period serves no purpose and granted interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner with specified conditi....
The legal provision on seized vehicles allows for the grant of interim custody with specified conditions, emphasizing the need to avoid keeping seized vehicles at police stations for a long period.
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 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.
Granting interim custody of seized vehicles and the conditions for such custody.
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....
Seized vehicles should be released pending hearing of applications for return, and should not be kept at police stations for a long period.
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 has the authority to grant interim custody of seized vehicles with specified conditions pending the hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
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.