A court should exercise its discretion to release seized vehicles pending trial to prevent their decay, provided ownership is not in dispute and appropriate security/guarantees are furnished, as prolonged detention in open yards serves no legal purpose.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 07.05.2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.328 of 2026, by the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur and to set aside the same and to release the four wheeler, Toyota ETIOS, bearing Reg.No.PY-05-VG-3582 and allow this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The facts of the case are that on 11.04.2026 at 11.30 a.m when the Respondent Police were on patrol duty at Aagasampattu Bus Stop, Papanchavadi, they searched a four wheeler, Toyota ETIOS, bearing Reg.No.PY-05-VG-3582 and found the said vehicle, carrying 93 numbers of No.1 MC Dowells Brandy (90 ml) bottles and 4 numbers of Morpheus Brandy (750 ml) bottles and seized the said vehicle and also the said liquor bottles. A case was registered in Cr.No.138 of 2026 under Sections 4(1)(A), 4(1)(C) and 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. Hence, the Revision Petitioner had filed the above petition, seeking release 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. This Court heard Mr.G.Tamilselvan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.N.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent.

4. 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 its Driver and that the Revision Petitioner was not at all involved in the alleged offence and 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, as the Revision Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the Respondent Police 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.

5.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

6.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 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 k