The pendency of confiscation proceedings does not bar the release of a seized vehicle to its lawful owner under applicable legal provisions.

ORDER

Heard Mr.T.Wins, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for Respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bhoothapandy, dated 23.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2025, whereby the petition under Section 497 & 503 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 75 AX 4981, was rejected on the premise that confiscation proceedings has been initiated in the said case after taking into consideration of the objections raised by the respondent police.

3. Mr.T.Wins, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is owner of the vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 75 AX 4981. The said vehicle was seized by the Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.652 of 2025, dated 18.09.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023, alleging that petitioner illegally transported four units of Jalli (crushed stone). The Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.474 of 2025 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bhoothapandy, to grant interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 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 he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of Registration Certificate of said vehicle and the same was perused by Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certification stands in the name of petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the said vehicle may be released subject to conditions and petitioner must co-operate in the confiscation proceedings 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, provide.

(3)The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

(4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under