BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

Prabakaran ... Petitioner

Vs

State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Inspector of Police,

Town West Police Station,

Thanjavur District.

Crime No.294 of 2025. ... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3869 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

For Petitioner : Mr.Gurumoorthy S,

For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Heard Mr.Gurumoorthy.S, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and

Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for

Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur District, dated 12.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3869/2025, whereby the petition filed by petitioner under Section 503(2) and 497 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., SPLENDOR + 135(DRS) Two Wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 49 CQ 8464, was rejected on the premise that confiscation proceedings was initiated.

3. Mr.S.Gurumoorthy, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner claims to be owner of the vehicle viz., SPLENDOR + 135(DRS) Two Wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 49 CQ 8464. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.294 of 2025, for offence Section 4(1)(A), 4(1)(C) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, alleging that petitioner was illegally transporting 180 ml of Siemens Brandy (11 Bottles). The Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.3869 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur District, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 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 owner of the said vehicle and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondent who confirmed that petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provid