The court emphasized the timely release of seized property, asserting that unjustified delays breach natural justice, especially when ownership is uncontested.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 02.06.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.188 of 2025, by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, and to set aside the same and to order return of the Tipper Lorry Vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-55-BM-8518 seized by the Respondent Police.

2.The case of the Prosecution is that on 01.12.2024 at about 08.00 am., when the Respondent Police along with his Team were on patrol duty at Maavoor Road, they found that the accused persons illegally quarried 6 units of rough stone and transported the same in his Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-55-BM-8518 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.179 of 2024 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.188 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 a 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.P.Arun Jayatram, 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 19.09.2025, had issued notice to the second respondent. As per Office report dated 10.11.2025, it is seen that notice was served on 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 is depend upon the said vehicle and the said