Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Shamim Ahmed, J
Kulanthaisamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.RC(MD).No.1247 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D.Rajaboopathy
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
The court emphasized that judicial discretion in releasing seized property must be exercised promptly to prevent degradation and ensure justice.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, 497, and 503 - Release of seized vehicle - The petitioner sought to set aside the lower court's order denying the return of his seized vehicle, claiming arbitrary action by the police - Court held that the ownership is undisputed and judicial discretion under the BNSS must be exercised without delay to prevent degradation of the property - The impugned order was reversed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing natural justice principles. (Paras 18, 20, 21)
(B) Natural Justice - Court underscored that prolonged detention of property without just cause causes undue hardship and violates constitutional rights to livelihood. (Paras 7, 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the legal framework for the appeal is established. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of arbitrary action against the police and the significance of ownership were discussed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. criteria for judicial discretion regarding vehicle seizures were analyzed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. rationale for reversing the lower court's order was presented. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling and directives following the court's reasoning were issued. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 19.07.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.322 of 2025, by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam, Thanjavur and to set aside the same and to order return of the Ashok Leyland Lorry Vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-31-V-2223 seized by the Respondent Police and kept in the custody of the above said Court in Cr.No.1154 of 2025 to the Revision Petitioner.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that when on 23.11.2024 at 04.45 Hours, the Respondent Police along with his Team were on patrol duty at Puthur Kollidam River Side, they found that the Revision Petitioner illegally quarried three units of river sand and transported the same in his Ashok Leyland Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-31-V-2223 and on seeing the Respondent Police, the Driver of the said Vehicle fled away from the spot and the Respondent Police seized the said Vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.1154 of 2024 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above petition, seeking release of the said Vehicle, before the Trial Court and by the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the said petition, refusing to release the said Vehicle. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. On behalf of the Respondent Police, the learned Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, opposing to release the Vehicle in question to the Petitioner, as if the Vehicle in question is released, it would seriously prejudice the case of the Prosecution and affect the integrity of the proceedings.
4. This Court heard Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that the Vehicle in question was misused by the accused persons, however, the Respondent Polilce seized the vehicle in question in an arbitrary manner and had falsely lodged the complaint against him only on suspicion and against the provisions of law and the action of Respondent Police is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and he has not indulged in any such illegal activities by using the said vehicle.
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the impugned order of the court below in rejecting the application filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking return of the vehicle in question is not sustainable, as the Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent Police and that when the ownership of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of the court below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the learned counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in question.
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the Revision Petitioner is facing great jeopardize due to confiscation of the vehicle in question by the Respondent Police and his livelihood is depend upon the said vehicle and the said vehicle is the main source of earning and now his family has come at the verge of starvation. Thus, the action of the Res
