Ulaganathan v. State Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.RC.No.739 of 2023 Ulaganahan ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep is Sub Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station.

Crime No.171 of 2022 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the Order dated 16.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.1433 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and subsequently grant custody of the vehicle Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162, Engine No.B67B6A250D06102C64120514, Chasis No.MBKMC5EK2BN007199 to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam dated 16.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.1433 of 2023 and to return the vehicle vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162 to the petitioner /owner of vehicle.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.07.2022, on secret information when the respondent police went to patrol, he found the petitioner illegally transporting gravel in the vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162 without any valid invoice and permit and hence a case in Crime No.171 of 2022 was registered for the offences under

Section 379 of IPC and Section 21 [1] Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act and the vehicle was seized.

3. The petitioner is the owner of the above said lorry and he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1433 of 2023 before the Trial Court to release the vehicle to him. But it was dismissed, vide order dated 16.03.2023 on the ground that the Magistrate Court has no jurisdiction to release the property involved in Mines and Minerals Act. Hence, challenging the above said order, the petitioner filed the present Revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162. He further submitted that if the vehicle is kept for a long time in the open space, it would cause damage to the vehicle and that the vehicle is not involved in any case of similar in nature and the petitioner is ready to give appropriate guarantee as well as security for return of vehicle and also he will produce the vehicle, as and when required either before the respondent

police or before the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to return the vehicle to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162 and since the above said vehicle was used to transport the gravel without valid invoice and permit, it was seized and hence, he objected to return the vehicle to him. He further submitted that the vehicle is not involved in any previous case of similar nature.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the respondent and I have perused the materials on record.

7. A perusal of the records shows that, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.171 of 2022 for the offences under Section

379 of IPC and Section 21 [1] Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act with regard to transportation of gravel illegally. Further, it reveals from the records that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.TN 16 F 6162 and it was seized by the respondent police. The Trial Court dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1433 of 2023, filed by the petitioner, on the ground that the Magistrate Court has no jurisdiction to release the property involved in Mines and Minerals Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to give guarantee and security for returning the vehicle and if the vehicle is being kept idle in open space, it would cause damage to the vehicle.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Lave Petition (Crl.)2745 of 2022 dated 01.10.2002 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to

protect the property, the Apex Court has directed to handover the seized articles to the owner on proper Panchnama.

9. Considering the above aspects and also as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that, keeping the vehicle idle in the open space, will diminish its nature and lose its value and no purpose will be served. As such, considering the nature of offence, this Court is inclined to allow the Revision Petition.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The respondent police is directed to return the vehicle to the owner on the following conditions :

i. the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the vehicle by producing the R.C.Book and other relevant records; ii. the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and the learned Magistrate shall not insist on production of solvency certificate. iii. the Court may prepare a panchnama in Judicial Form No.82 with regard to the vehicle and such panchanama can be used in evidence.

iv. the petitioner shall take photograph of the vehicle and certified under Section 65B of the Central At 1 of 1972 and such photographs may be used as secondary evidence. v. the petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the vehicle in any manner;

vi. the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future, vii. the petitioner shall also produce the vehicle as and when required before the court below and before the respondent police. 26.04.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vrc

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam

2. The Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

V.SIVAGNANAM, J., vrc Crl.RC No.739 of 2023 26.04.2023