A court must weigh the rights of ownership against suspicion of illegality when determining the custody of seized property, ensuring timely judicial oversight.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records, relating to the order, dated 08.08.2025, passed in Crl.MP.No.675 of 2025, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor and to set aside the same and to order interim custody of the Vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-74- BE-2761, seized by the Respondent Police on 01.07.2025 in Cr.No.648 of 2025 to the Revision Petitioner.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that when on 01.07.2025 at 07.00 a.m., the Respondent Police along with his Team were on patrol duty at Perungudi Village, on receiving information that pond soil was being illegally removed from the pond situated on the Southern side of the North Perungudi Village, they came to the said place and they found a Bharat Benz Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-74-BE-2761 standing at that place and on seeing the Respondent Police, the Driver of the said Vehicle fled away from the spot and that the said Vehicle contained no soil, however they found clear traces of soil excavation in the pond. The Respondent Police seized the said Vehicle and brought the same to the Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. and after investigation, a case was registered in Cr.No.648 of 2025 under Section 303(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 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 and in reply thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and the same are available on record.

4. This Court heard Mr.S.Krishna Kumar, 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 he and his brother are jointly running a brick chamber and that he had parked the vehicle only in his brick chamber, however, the Respondent Police came to his brick chamber, 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 since mere presence of the vehicle in question near the pond would not constitute the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that since there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the vehicle in question was used for illegal soil mining on the date of the alleged occurrence, 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 Responde