SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Arul Viji – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) 1227 2023



The court has the power to modify the conditions imposed by a lower court while granting an order for the return of a seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top