← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/161/2024allowed

R.Ayya Muruga v. The State Rep By Through

2024-07-03Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI R.Ayya Muruga ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, (Crime No.785/2023) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 24.08.2023 made in C.M.P.No.5472 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam dismissing the return of vehicle viz., Maruti Suziki Eeco 5 STR AC Car bearing No.TN-57-BF-1645 (Model 2018) Chasis No.MA3ERLF1S0606088DJ, Engine No.G12BN583915 by allowing this Criminal Revision Case. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is filed, challenging the orders, dated 24.08.2023 passed in C.M.P.No.5472 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

2. The revision petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5472 of 2023 under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the vehicle viz., Maruti Suziki Eeco 5 STR AC Car bearing Reg.No.TN57-BF-1645. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam on 24.08.2023. Aggrieved over the said order, the Criminal revision is preferred by the revision petitioner.

3. Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle viz., Maruti Suziki Eeco 5 STR AC Car bearing Reg.No.TN-57-BF-1645 and the said vehicle was seized by the Respondent Police on 15.07.2023 in Crime No.785/2023 for an alleged offence punishable under Section 399 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The said vehicle is kept in the custody of Police in open space in the Police Station. If the vehicle is kept in an open space, the value of the same will diminish over the period of time. Therefore he prayed for return of the vehicle.

4. Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent Police recovered armed deadly weapons from the vehicle and if the vehicle is ordered to be returned, the petitioner may use the vehicle for committing offences. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer 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 relevant portion is extracted hereunder: Vehicles "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to

keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company, then insuance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle, which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance Company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court.

The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchanama should be prepared."

6. Considering the above and the fact that keeping the vehicle idle in an open space, would diminish the value of the vehicle over a period of time, this Court is inclined to allow the Revision.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the

impugned order in C.M.P.No.5472 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, is set aside and the vehicle shall be returned to the petitioner on the following conditions: i. the petitioner shall prove her ownership of the vehicle by producing the R.C.Book and other relevant records; ii. the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) before the trial Court.

iii. the Court may prepare a panchanama in Judicial Form No.82 with regard to the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-57-BF1645 and such panchanama can be used in evidence. iv. the petitioner shall take photograph of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-57-BF-1645 and certified under Section 65B of the Central Act 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.

03.07.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order Rli To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam .

2.The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rli 03.07.2024