Paramasivam vs State Of Tamilnadu - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105828

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 105828

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Murugesan, J
Paramasivam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamilnadu – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) No. 1642 of 2026

Important Points

Seized vehicles should not be kept in police custody for extended periods as they deteriorate; interim custody should be granted to the entitled person, even if they are the accused, subject to reasonable conditions and security.

Subject

Criminal Law - Interim Custody of Property

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: S.438, S.442, S.497, S.498, S.503
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.303(2)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act: S.21(1)(2)

Headnote

(A) Interim Custody of Property - Seized Vehicle - Deterioration of property - Keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods is counterproductive; Magistrates should pass appropriate orders for return upon taking security to prevent the vehicle from becoming unusable. (Para 13(8), 13(10), 13(11))

(B) Criminal Procedure - BNSS - Sections 497, 498, and 503 - Scope of power - These sections empower the court to order the custody or delivery of property involved in a criminal case to the person entitled to possession. (Para 13(1)-(5))

(C) Return of Property - Accused as Claimant - The status of the applicant as an accused should not preclude the grant of interim custody of the vehicle. (Para 13(9), 13(11))

Issues: Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle despite the case being registered under the MMDR Act.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Alagan
For the Respondents: D. Venkatesh

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 08.10.2026.

03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated 16.04.2026 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl MP No.77/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/1st accused under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing registration number TN 31 BY 8949, in RP No.23/2026 involved in Cr No.28/2026 under S.303(2) BNS and S.21(1)(2) MMDR Act on the file of Kaaraiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District, the revision petitioner/petitioner/1st accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the trial court is that a vehicle, Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry, bearing registration number TN 31 BY 8949, is said to have involved Cr No.28/2026 under S.303(2) BNS and S.21(1)(2) MMDR Act on the file of Kaaraiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District, that in pursuance of such registration of the criminal case, the aforesaid property has been seized by the respondent police, that the aforesaid property is now in the custody of the respondent police but without proper care or maintenance, that the aforesaid property, if left idle without proper maintenance, would become useless and ruined and that therefore, the interim custody of the aforesaid property needs to be granted to the revision petitioner being its owner.

06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision respondent in the trial court is that if the property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner and that therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the property concerned deserves for dismissal.

07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the trial court.

08. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.77/2026 on the finding that this is a case registered under MMDR Act and that there is a likelihood of bringing the property for confiscation.

09. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the property is not only against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of interim custody of the vehicles, that the trial court, without due application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections raised by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order of the trial court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that therefore, this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs to be allowed, setting aside the order of the trial court and thereby granting the interim custody of the properties concerned.

10. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the revision respondent would submit that this is a case registered under MMDR Act, that the investigation is still pending, that if the property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner, that therefore, the order of the trial court is lawful and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition deserves for dismissal in limine.

11. Heard both sides, and perused all