Pendency of confiscation proceedings is not a bar to the interim release of a seized vehicle, and such vehicles should not be kept in police custody for long periods to prevent deterioration.

ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Sarath Kumar, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, dated 25.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1413 of 2025 in Crime No.21 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by petitioner under Sections 497 and 503(2) of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 28 AK 7918, was rejected on the premise that the vehicle was involved in illegal mining and transportation of one unit of sand, which leads to environmental degradation, causes serious ecological imbalance, and results in significant revenue loss to the Government.

3. Mr.G.Sarath Kumar, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 28 AK 7918. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.21 of 2024, dated 0.9.02.2024 for offence Section 379 of IPC and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, alleging that petitioner was illegally transporting one unit of sand. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.1413 of 2025 before Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of the sale agreement and delivery note of said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent, who confirmed that petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject vehicle.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and in case, confiscation proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which reads as follows:-

"497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."

7. It may also be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o