BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Praveen Kumar S/o.Ramamoorthy ..Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station Virudhunagar District.

Crime No.220 of 2024. ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of BNSS, 2023, to pass an order allowing the above Criminal Revision Petition and consequently set aside the order as made in Crl MP No.384/2025 dated 12.05.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in Crime No.220 of 2024 dated 05.12.2024 subsequently direct the respondent police to grant the interim custody of VIVO Y200(5G) (IMEI No. 860378062527477) mobile phone and order the relief as sought for in the said application.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Uthaya Kumar.

For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.Uthaya Kumar, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2025 dated 12.05.2025, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar pertaining to Crime No.220 of 2024 dated 05.12.2024 and subsequently direct the respondent to grant the interim custody of the property viz., Mobile Phone (Vivo Y200 (5G)

(IMEI No. 860378062527477).

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner’s father, namely Ramamoorthi, is alleged to have committed the offence of illegal transportation of PDS rice using petitioner’s Mobile Phone (Vivo Y200 (5G) (IMEI No. 860378062527477)), which has been seized by respondent Police and an FIR in Crime No.220 of 2024 was registered on 05.12.2024 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (ROCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He would further submit that petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused and has no knowledge of the alleged offence. He produced the tax invoice of the said mobile in support thereof and the same was perused by Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent, who confirmed that petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject mobile.

4. Learned Government Advocate has strong objections to the request for the release of the mobile phone. He would contend that the mobile phone contain crucial details/data and the Court should not grant interim custody of the mobile phone as it may cause prejudice to the prosecution and there is a possibility of tampering of evidence.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner would co-operate with the prosecution and permit respondent police to retrive or extract the data contained in the said mobile phone and also permit them to transmit or migrate the same to any other device of respondent and undertakes not to tamper with such data.

6. Earlier when the matter came up for hearing on 09.02.2026, this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 directed petitioner to appear before Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, on 13.02.2026 and to enable the prosecution to access the mobile phone by disclosing the lock patter, arithmetic patter, or any other security pattern and to permit migration of data, if any, to any other device and to prepare mahazar in this regard. 7. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it was submitted that petitioner had complied with the directions of this Court vide order dated

09.02.2026.

8. 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 su