HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Arul Viji – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) 1227 2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 451 - RETURN OF VEHICLE - CONDITIONS - MODIFICATION - OLDNESS OF VEHICLE
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police for allegedly transporting river sand without proper permission. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the vehicle. The Principal Sessions Judge allowed the petition but imposed certain conditions, including a condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the order of the Principal Sessions Judge and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The court considered the oldness of the vehicle and the petitioner's financial crisis while modifying the condition.
Issues: Whether the condition imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge was onerous?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the condition imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge was onerous considering the oldness of the vehicle and the petitioner's financial crisis. The court modified the condition to a more reasonable amount.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the condition imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge.
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1227 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated :29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1227 of 2023
Arul Viji
... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Vs.
Sub Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent/Respondent/
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the first condition
in Para 7(1) imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2690 of 2023 dated
01.06.2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at
Nagercoil and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondent
: Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1227 of 2023
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to call for the records and set aside
the first condition in Para 7(1) imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2690 of
2023 dated 01.06.2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the Mahindra & Mahindra Tempo bearing Registration
No.TN 83 5982. On the date of occurrence (i.e) on 18.03.2023 at about 02.00
a.m, it is alleged that the petitioner vehicle transported the river sand without
proper permission. Therefore, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.112
of 2023 for the offence under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner as the
owner of the vehicle filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.
2690 of 2023, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, kanniyakumar District
at Nagercoil, for return of vehicle and the same was allowed on 01.06.2023, with
certain conditions.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1227 of 2023
3. The learned Sessions Judge, while granting the order of return of vehicle,
imposed the certain conditions upon the petitioner. One of the conditions (1) is
that ''the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai”.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's
vehicle is not involved in the above said commission of offence. He would further
submit that due to financial crisis, the petitioner is unable to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kuzhithurai. Hence, this Court may set aside the above said condition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.
6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the vehicle was
manufactured in the year 2005 and the condition imposed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, in directing the petitioner
to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai is onerous.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1227 of 2023
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the oldness of the vehicle, the order of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, made in Crl.M.P.No.2690 of 2023,
dated 01.06.2023 is modified in respect of the condition No.(i) alone and it is
modified to the effect that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Kuzthithurai. The other conditions (ii) to (vii) shall remain
unaltered.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revis
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.