Seized property must be promptly released if ownership is undisputed, with adherence to legal procedures to avoid damage and financial detriment to the owner.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 28.08.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.277 of 2025, by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Judge, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District and to set aside the same and to order return of the Vehicle (Lorry), bearing Registration No.TN-55-CB-3522 seized by the Respondent Police.

2.The case of the Prosecution is that on 01.08.2025 at about 06.00 pm., when the Respondent Police along with his Team were on patrol duty near Ayyar Kanmoi, Pondhupuli, they found that the accused persons illegally quarried gravel sand and transported the same in his Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-55-CB-3522 and thus, the Respondent Police seized the said Vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.75 of 2025 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.277 of 2025, 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, Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has filed counter affidavit and in reply thereto, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit and the same are available on record.

4.This Court heard Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first Respondent.

5.This Court, vide order dated 25.09.2025, had issued notice to the second respondent. As per Office report dated 10.11.2025, it is seen that notice was served upon the second respondent. However, today, when the matter is being taken up, neither the second respondent nor any counsel representing the second respondent appear before this Court. Thus, it appears that the second respondent is not interested in pursuing the Criminal Revision Case.

6.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 Police 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.

7.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.

8.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