Sathya v. State Rep.By, The Station House Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Sathya ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by The Station House Officer PE-Wing Panruti Cuddalore District (Crime No.34 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under under Section 438 read with 442 of B.N.S.S. to set aside the order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Panruti and return of the vehicle bearing number TN-91-AY-1182 Hero Splender Plus Two Wheeler being engine number HA11EYM6G02667 Chassis No.MBLHAW12M6G02995 from the respondent police in Crime No.34 of 2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Manikandan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor 1/4
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Panruti and return the two wheeler "Hero Splender Plus"
bearing Registration No.TN-91-AY-1182 (Engine No.HA11EYM6G02667 and Chassis No.MBLHAW12M6G02995) seized in connection with Crime No.34 of 2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the two wheeler viz. "Hero Splender Plus" bearing Regn.No.TN-91-AY-1182. The said vehicle was seized by the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.34 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1)(A) and 14(A) of Tamilnadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 alleging that the said vehicle was used for transporting liquor illegally. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, seeking return of property, but the said petition was dismissed by order dated 10.02.2025. Hence, challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecution appearing for the respondent police submitted that since the vehicle was involved for transporting liquor illegally, the vehicle was seized by the respondent police. 2/4
Subsequently, the competent authority has initiated confiscation proceedings and showcause notice has also been issued to the petitioner.
4. It is seen that the confiscation proceedings has already been initiated by the competent authority and showcause notice has also been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision.
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy in the confiscation proceedings pending before the competent authority. 01.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ksa-2 To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Panruti
2. The Station House Officer PE-Wing Panruti Cuddalore District
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 3/4
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2 01.04.2025 4/4