Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Vadamalai Rajaya Pandian – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Forest Ranger – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim custody of seized vehicle (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding ownership and custody (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's power under wildlife laws (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conditions for release of vehicle (Para 11) |
| 5. disposal of the revision case (Para 12) |
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
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.
The pendency of confiscation proceedings does not bar the release of a seized vehicle to its lawful owner under applicable legal provisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
