BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 07.01.2025 Pronounced on : 11.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Crl.R.C(MD)No.12 of 2025 Nabisa Begam ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyar Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.498 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 18.11.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.7216 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated

18.11.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.7216 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, for return of two wheeler bearing registration number TN 49 CP 0459, which was seized by the respondent police in Crime No.498 of 2024.

2.The brief facts of the case:

It is alleged that on 21.09.2024 at 10.15 a.m., the respondent police found two persons with ganja and diazepam powder in the two wheeler bearing registration number TN-49-CP-0459. For the alleged occurrence, a case was registered in Crime No.498 of 2024 by the respondent police against them for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 22(a) of the NDPS Act. The respondent seized 1.110 kg of ganja and 150 gram of diazepam powder and also seized the vehicle. The petitioner, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle, has filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.7216 of 2024 before the Additional District Court/Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, for return of property on interim custody. After hearing both sides, the petition was dismissed on 18.11.2024.

3. Being aggrieved by the order, the revision petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The petitioner’s vehicle is not involved in this crime. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the respondent police and the same has been kept idle in the respondent’s police station without any maintenance. The petitioner’s vehicle is kept idle in open place from the date of seizure and the vehicle will get ruined by sunlight and rain and it would lose its value. The trial Court has not considered the guidelines in the case of return of property as settled by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent objected and contended that the vehicle was remanded before the trial Court in RPRNo.79/2024 and confiscation proceedings has not been initiated so far and the same is pending for process. The vehicle was seized with contraband. If the interim custody of the vehicle is ordered, there are more possibilities for not cooperating for investigation and the petitioner may alter the physical conditions of the vehicle. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and dismissed the petition. Therefore, he strongly opposed this petition. 7. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioner is not an accused in this case. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized under NDPS Act and the same has been in police custody. It is also clear that the property in question was remanded before the trial Court under RPRNo.79/2024. It is the settled principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case, there is no use in keeping seized vehicles at police station in open place exposing to sunlight and rain for a long period a