Mr.Prem @ Nagaraj v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.6.2015 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Criminal Revision Case No.626 of 2015 K.Prem @ Nagaraj .. Petitioner/Accused

Versus

State by Inspector of Police K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.

.. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.4.2015 passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.730 of 2010 in Crime No.525 of 2015.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Anandaraj For Respondent :

Mr.V.Arul Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 18.4.2015 passed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return of property, namely, two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN 13 A 5510.

2. The respondent seized the vehicle from the petitioner in connection with the case in Crime No.525/2015 on the file of the first respondent on 06.2.2015 for the commission of alleged offence under Section 341, 294 (b), 384, 323, 397, 336, 506(ii) of IPC on the allegation that the petitioner has used the vehicle for illegal purpose and was kept under illegal detention in the respondent police station. The petitioner filed a petition before the Court below under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking custody of the vehicle. Since the same was dismissed, the petitioner has filed this revision case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and after seizure, the vehicle is parked in the police station in the open place and it is exposed to sun, rain and dust. If the custody of the vehicle is not handed over to the petitioner, the value of the vehicle will be diminished. The learned counsel also submitted that he is willing to return the vehicle as and when required and he will not alienate the vehicle till the disposal of the case. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow this Criminal Revision Petition.

4. I have also heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. In the decision of this Court reported in Gajendran vs. State, through Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Madurai (2008) 6 CTC 846 it was held that valuable properties need not be unnecessarily kept in the Court custody and it can be released with sufficient safeguard. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the car and if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in Court deposit, it will be exposed to dust, heat and rain and it will diminish the value of the vehicle. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the Court below refusing to return the vehicle is unsustainable and, therefore, this Revision Petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to return the two wheeler bearing Registration No.

TN 13 A 5510 to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle in question by producing the original Registration Certificate (RC Book) of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his ownership and the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the RC Book and other records, retaining the xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to the revision petitioner with a view to use the vehicle excepting the original R.C. Book which will be in the custody of the Court.

ii) The petitioner shall execute bond for Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] to the satisfaction of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai.

(iii) The petitioner shall also furnish two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each like sum to the satisfaction of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

iv) The petitioner shall also file an undertaking affidavit before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai -8 to the effect that he will not alienate or encumber or alter the vehicle in any manner till the disposal of the criminal case.

v) The court below shall effect return of the vehicle to the revision petitioner after causing necessary photographs and panchanama. The panchanama shall be drawn up by an officer of the Court in the presence of two Panchayatdhars and in the immediate presence of the Presiding Officer of the Court.

v) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that he will produce the vehicle in question as and when it was directed to be produced by the court below during the course of trial.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, K3 Aminjikarai Police station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 4.do thro'The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. +1 cc to Mr.M.Anandaraj, Advocate,SR.31529.

Nm(co) krd 9/7 Crl RC No.626 of 2015