Interim custody of seized vehicles denied; court emphasized maintaining value and conditions of seized property.

COMMON ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1280 of 2024 is filed against the order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2482 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ramanathapuram and to set aside the same and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to release the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-65-AK-0025 to the revision petitioner on interim custody, 2. The Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1281 of 2024 is filed against the order, dated 18.06.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2623 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ramanathapuram and to set aside the same and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to release the four wheeler bearing registration No.TN-65-AH-7880 to the revision petitioner on interim custody

3.The brief facts of the case:

The two wheeler/Royal Enfield bearing registration No.TN 65 AK

0025 and four wheeler Maruti Omni bearing registration No.TN 65 AH 7880 belonged to the petitioner. It is alleged that on 22.04.2024 the respondent police on suspicion search, it is found that the vehicles were utilized for illegal smuggling of 700 kg sea cucumbers through Ambulance and the vehicles were seized and the accused arrested. A case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2024 U/s.2, 9, 39(1)(a)(b)(d), 39(3)(a)(b)(c), 49-A(a)(b), 50 and 51 of Schedule I Part - F (Echinodermata) of Wildlife Protection Act . The vehicles were remanded before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. The petitioner filed two separate petitions in Crl.M.P.No.2482 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.2623 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ramanthapuram for interim custody of the vehicles and the said petitions were dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come forward with these present criminal revision cases.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the Royal Enfield and Maruti Omni car in question belonged to the petitioner. The vehicles were not used for the alleged crime and there is no connection for the same. The seized vehicles are kept idle in open yard by the respondent police from the date of seizure. If the vehicles are in open place, due to exposure of sun and rain, the value of vehicles would get deteriorated. The petitioner is ready to abide any stringent condition and therefore, the interim custody of the vehicle may be granted to the petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent has filed a separate counter and submitted that the vehicles were used for illegal smuggling of 700 kg of banned sea cucumber through Ambulance. Moreover, the two wheeler was already involved in a case relating to smuggling of ganja in respondent police station Crime No.93 of 2022. The petitioner’s vehicles were seized upon the case registered and remanded before the concerned Court in RPR.No.63/2024. No confiscation proceeding was initiated. Hence, objected to hand over the vehicles on interim custody.

8. On hearing and perusal of records, it is clear that the petitioner is the owner of the two wheeler/Royal Enfield bearing registration No.TN 65 AK 0025 and four wheeler/Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.TN 65 AH 7880 as seen from the copy of RC book. There is no dispute that the vehicles were seized by the respondent police, in this case, registered for the alleged offences U/s.2, 9, 39(1)(a)(b)(d), 39(3)(a)(b)(c), 49-A(a)(b), 50 and 51 of Schedule I Part F (Echinodermata) of Wildlife Protection Act . It is admitted that the vehicles were remanded in RPR.No.

63/2024 before the Judicia