1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.02.2018

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

Crl.O.P.No.685 of 2018

K.Kalaikumaran

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

Villupuram District,

Villupuram.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police (Excise),

Kottaikuppam Police Station,

Villupuram District.

.. Respondents

Prayer :The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying to direct the second respondent viz., the Sub Inspector of

Police, (Prohibition & Excise), Kottaikuppam Police Station, Villupuram

District, (Crime No.673 of 2017) to return the car viz., Tata Indica

bearing Registration No.TN-32-AC-5951 to the petitioner pending

disposal of the trial.

For Petitioner

:

Ms.T.Nithya

For Respondents

:

Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

http://www.judis.nic.in

2

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second

respondent to return his vehicle viz., Tata Indica car bearing

Registration No.TN-32-AC-5951.

2.The petitioner submitted that he had lent his car to his friend

for a temple function. While they were returning from Puducherry, the

car was seized by the second respondent and a case was registered

against him and two others in Cr.No.673 of 2017 for the offences

under Sections 4(1) (aaa), 4(1)A of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. He

further submitted that he has no nexus with the said alleged offence

and a false case has been foisted against him. This Court by an order

dated 22.12.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.28680 of 2017 had granted

anticipatory bail to him. He further submitted that he is appearing

before the second respondent and also made request for return of

vehicle but the same was denied by the second respondent. Hence, he

has no other remedy except to approach this Court by way of the

present petition.

3.Heard Ms.T.Nithya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the

respondents.

http://www.judis.nic.in

3

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to impress

upon this Court that a false case stands foisted upon the petitioner.

This Court is now concerned with return of property, pure and simple.

5.In the circumstances above stated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in a judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat

reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 had clearly laid down the

dictum in connection with the custody and disposal of property pending

trial in certain cases. The relevant portion of the said order reads as

follows:

“7.In our view, the powers under Section

451 Cr.P.C., should be exercised expeditiously

and judiciously. It would serve various purposes,

namely:--

1.Owner of the article would not suffer

because of its remaining unused or by its

misappropriation;

2.Court or the police would not be required

to keep the article in safe custody;

3.If the proper panchnama before handing

over possession of article is prepared, that can be

used in evidence instead of its production before

the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence

could also be recorded describing the nature of

the property in detail; and

4.This jurisdiction of the Court to record

http://www.judis.nic.in

4

evidence should be exercised promptly so that

there may not be further chance of tampering

with the articles.

17.In our view, whatever be the situation,

it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the

police stations for a long period. It is for the

Magistrate to pass appropriate orders

immediately by taking appropriate bond and

guarantee as well as security for return of the

said vehicles, if required at any point of time.

This can be done pending hearing of applications

for return of such vehicles.

18.In case where the vehicle is not claimed

by the accused, owner, or the insurance company

or by third person, th