The court affirmed that the pendency of confiscation proceedings does not prevent the interim release of seized vehicles, ensuring property is not neglected or devalued during legal processes.

ORDER :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Prabu, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai dated 13.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.7575 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by petitioner under Sections 497 and 503(2) of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., TATA Nexon Car bearing Reg.No.TN-60-BY-0670, was rejected on the premise that the case is under investigation; that the vehicle was seized under Section 39 (1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; that the respondent has strongly objected to its release, and confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the Authorized Officer.

3. Mr.R.Ganesh Prabu, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner's wife claims to be the owner of the vehicle viz., TATA Nexon Car bearing Registration No.TN-60-BY-0670. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent and a case was registered in WLOR.No.07 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 2 (1) (2) (5) (11)(12B) (14) (15) (17) (18) (19) (23) (24A) (25B) (30) (31) (32) (36) (37) and Sections 39 , 40, 42, 44, 44(1)(a), 47, 48, 49, 50, 51(1), 52, 55, 56, 57 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 alleging that petitioner's assistant namely Ramesh along with others were in possession of Elephant Ivory (Tusk) in the car with the intention to sell it in the market. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.7575 of 2025 before learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner's wife is the owner of the vehicle and that would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of Registration Certificate of said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent, who confirmed that petitioner's wife is the owner of the subject vehicle.

4.1. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would also submit that Petitioner's son had suffered kidney failure, and his wife donated one of her kidneys, which was transplanted to their son on 15.05.2025. Both Petitioner's wife and son continue to require medical attention. Petitioner's wife has been advised to avoid exposure to the public, as it could make her and her son vulnerable to infection. An affidavit was filed before Trial Court by Petitioner's wife stating the above facts and expressing that she had no objection for grant of interim custody of the vehicle to Petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and petitioner must co-operate in confiscation proceedings and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), which reads as follows:-

"497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold