← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/419/2021dismissed

Killmanbabu @Hilmanbabu v. State Rep.By

2021-07-12Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case No.419 of 2021 Killmanbabu @ Hilmanbabu ... Petitioner/Petitioner ..vs..

State Represented by, Inspector of Police, M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai, Crime No.42 of 2021.

... Respondent/Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur in Crl.M.P.No.1412 of 2021 dated 06.05.2021 and consequently, direct the respondent police to return the Container Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 28 K 6046 Model Container Lorry Ashok Leyland Ltd (HW YELLOW COLOUR) having Engine No.DVH230817 and Chassis No.DVH077387, which was seized by the respondent police in Crime No.42 of 2021. For Petitioner :

Mr.T.K.Sathiaseelan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Sugendran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1412 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur.

2.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2021 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 328 IPC r/w 20(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003 and seized the Container Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 28 K 6046, Model Container Lorry Ashok Leyland Ltd (HW YELLOW COLOUR) having Engine No.DVH230817 and Chassis No.DVH077387. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1412 of 2021 under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C

seeking interim custody of the vehicle, which was dismissed by the Court below, against which the petitioner is before this Court with the present Criminal Revision Case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. The driver of the lorry transported the prohibited goods, without the knowledge of the petitioner. He would further submit that the vehicle in question is in the custody of the Court for more than six months and the said vehicle is the livelihood for the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks interim custody of the said vehicle and that he would abide by stringent conditions, if any, to be imposed on him. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the alleged vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of 290 bags of Tobacco products, which were weighing 35 kgs each, worth about Rs.5,00,000/- and the investigation is still pending and charge sheet is yet to be filed. During the investigation, if the vehicle is released, there is a possibility of tampering of engine and chassis number of the vehicle and hence, he objects for release of the vehicle.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the respondent/police registered the case in Crime No.42 of 2021 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 328 IPC r/w 20(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003 and also seized the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 28 K 6046. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1412 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur and the same was dismissed on 06.05.2021. Though the petitioner is not involved in the said offence, however, he admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle. It is seen that in the present case, investigation is pending and charge sheet not yet filed. If at all, after investigation found that the vehicle is involved in the commission of offence, it is liable to be confiscated. The release of the vehicle during investigation is purely the discretionary power of the Court.

The learned Judicial Magistrate by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot conduct roving enquiry at this stage.

7.Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Ms To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur.

2.The Inspector of Police, M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.419 of 2021 NMI(CO) GN(05/08/2021)