Heard and admitted.

02.With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 07.10.2026.

03.Vide the order dated 12.08.2025, the 2nd respondent has been impleaded in this criminal revision.

04.Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated09.06.2025 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl.MP.No.2366/2025, an application filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/accused under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Mahendra Bolero Pickup, bearing registration number TN 48 K 1345, involved in Cr.No. 12/2025 under S.303(1) BNS and S.21(1) MMDR Act on the file of Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

05.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.

06.Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the trial court is that a vehicle, Mahendra Bolero Pickup, bearing registration number TN 48 K 1345 is said to have involved Cr No.12/2025 under S. 303(1) BNS and S.21(1) MMDR Act on the file of Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, 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.

07.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 revision seeking such interim custody of the property concerned deserves for dismissal.

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

09.On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.2366/2025 on the finding that the RC Book of the vehicle stands in the name of some other person, this is a case registered under MMDR Act, that the investigation is still pending and 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.

10.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the properties 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.

11.Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the 1st revision respondent would submit that this is a case registered under MMDR Act, that the investigation is still pending, that the petitioner is a habitual offender having various cases of similar nature, that if the property co