1. Ownership undisputed – Vehicle used for crime – Confiscation pending – Entitlement to interim custody contested. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Rajeshwari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate
Under BNSS Sections 497 and 503, a Magistrate may order interim custody of seized property pending trial if ownership is undisputed and it is expedient to prevent deterioration; pending confiscation proceedings are not a bar.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 497 and 503 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 - Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(A) - Interim custody of seized vehicle - Power of Magistrate under Section 497 BNSS to order proper custody of property pending trial - Trial court must exercise power judiciously and without delay - Seized vehicle should not be kept for long period in open yard causing deterioration - Ownership of vehicle not disputed - Owner entitled to interim custody on suitable conditions - Conditions imposed: bank guarantee and bond to produce vehicle as and when required - Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents regarding disposal of seized vehicles - Pendency of confiscation proceedings under Excise Act is not a bar to release of vehicle. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Constitutional law - Articles 19, 20, 21 - Deprivation of property - Right to livelihood - Retention of vehicle by police causing hardship to owner - Violation of natural justice - Consideration in grant of interim custody. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
On secret information, police seized a two-wheeler from accused persons found in possession of 110 liquor bottles (180 ml each) at a location near a city. A case under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act was registered. The owner filed an application for interim custody before the Trial Court, which was dismissed. Hence a criminal revision was filed before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Trial Court did not properly exercise its power under Section 497 BNSS. The ownership of the vehicle was not disputed. Keeping the vehicle in the open yard would cause damage and serve no purpose. The owner’s livelihood depended on the vehicle. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the impugned order was set aside and the vehicle was directed to be released forthwith on conditions that the petitioner furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.20,000 and a bond to produce the vehicle as and when required.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing interim custody of the seized vehicle to the owner pending trial? Whether the vehicle should be released despite pending confiscation proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 497 BNSS enables a Magistrate to order interim custody of seized property during trial. When ownership is not in dispute, it is expedient to release the property to the owner on suitable conditions to prevent deterioration and hardship, especially when the property is not required for evidence or subject to confiscation proceedings that do not bar release. The court must balance the need for preservation of property with the rights of the owner.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed. Impugned order of the Trial Court dated 30.06.2025 set aside. Trial Court directed to release the vehicle forthwith to the revision petitioner on condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.20,000 and executing a bond to produce the vehicle as and when required. No order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Vehicle released on bank guarantee and bond. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. What is the duty of a Magistrate under Section 497 BNSS regarding seized property pending trial?
The Magistrate must exercise the power judiciously and without unnecessary delay to prevent damage and allow the owner to enjoy the property. (Para 16 )
4. Does the pendency of confiscation proceedings bar the release of a seized vehicle?
No, pendency of confiscation proceedings is not a bar for release of the vehicle, as held in various High Court decisions. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. What is the procedure under Section 503 BNSS for seized property not produced before court?
The Magistrate must promptly decide disposal or delivery to the person entitled, following a proclamation if the person is unknown. (Para 17 )
6. Is it appropriate to keep seized vehicles for long periods?
No, it leads to damage and is against natural justice; the court should release the vehicle with conditions as per Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai. (Para 13 , 18 )
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.2591 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, and hand over the Vehicle, (Access 125 RC) bearing registration No.TN-49-CR-2667 to the petitioner’s custody.
2.The case of the Prosecution is that on secret information, on 26.05.2025 at about 02.00 pm., when the respondent along with his Team were on patrol duty near Thanjavur Keezhavasal AYA Nadar Road Krishna Talkies, the respondent, on the ground of suspicion, stopped the vehicle in question and after search, they found that the accused persons were found in possession of 110 liquor bottles, each contains 180 ml., in the vehicle in question (Access 125 RC) bearing registration No.TN-49- CR-2667. Thus, the respondent seized the said vehicle and a case was registered in Cr.No.151 of 2025 under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. Hence, the Revision Petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.2591 of 2025, seeking interim custody 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, Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate 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.K.M.Karunakaran, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate 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 Police seized the vehicle in question in an arbitrary manner and had falsely lodged the complaint against her only on suspicion and against the provisions of law and the action of Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and she 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 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 and her livelihood is depend upon the said vehicle and the said vehicle is the main source of earning and now her family has come at the verge of starvation. Thus, the action of the Respondent is clear cut violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned Counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujrat , AIR 2003 SC 638.
9.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is quoted as under:-
"497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending
