Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SHAMIM AHMED, J
P.Rajakumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.RC(MD).No.1220 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Krishna Kumar
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Seized vehicles must be released if ownership is clear and no evidence supports illegal use, emphasizing timely judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, 497, 503 - Vehicle seizure - Court directed release of a vehicle seized for illegal soil excavation as there was no supporting evidence of illegal activity at the time of seizure. The court underscored that maintaining the vehicle in police custody without prompt judicial action violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 21, 22)
(B) The court discussed the need for timely decisions regarding seized property to prevent damage and affirmed the owner's rights when ownership is not disputed. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
A vehicle was seized while patrol officers investigated illegal soil removal, yet no evidence indicated it was utilized for illegal activities. The Revision Petitioner claimed the seizure was arbitrary and his livelihood depended on the vehicle.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order denying the return of the vehicle was found unsustainable, necessitating its release.
Issues: The key issues were the legality of the vehicle's seizure and the validity of the Trial Court's refusal to release it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted the necessity of exercising judicious power on seized property and established that lack of evidence for illegal use warranted the return of the vehicle.
Result: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and the impugned order is reversed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court order for vehicle custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim of wrongful seizure and necessity of vehicle. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. judicial guidelines for timely hearing of seized vehicles. (Para 13 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. court ordered reversal of prior dismissal and release of vehicle. (Para 21 , 22) |
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.674 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- BB-3029, 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 one Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-74- BB-3029 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. This Court, vide order dated, 03.09.2025, had passed the following order:-
“This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dated 08.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 674 of 2025 and to grant interim custody of the Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-74-BB-3029 seized by the respondent on 01.07.2025 to the petitioner.
2.Heard Mr.S.Krishna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) accepts notice for the respondent. Thus, there is no need to issue notice on the respondent.
3.Mr.S.Krishna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was wrongly seized by the respondent without any authority and with a mala fide intention, the case has been set up by the respondent, even though no illegal act was done by the petitioner. It was further submitted that putting the vehicle in the open yard at the Police Station will solve no purpose and it will damage the vehicle.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent is now trying to auction the said vehicle. Thus, he prays this Court that an interim direction may be issued to the respondent that the respondent may not auction or change the nature of the vehicle in question, namely, TN-74-BB-3029, till the final disposal of this Criminal Revision Case.
5.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who has accepted notice for the respondent, prays four weeks time to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent.
6.Accordingly, considering the request made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent, four weeks and no more time is granted to file a counter affidavit for the respondent and thereafter, one week time is granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.
7.Put up this case ‘for final hearing’ on 30.10.2025 before the appropriate Bench. The respondent is restrained from auctioning or alienating the vehicle in q
