Arjunan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ramajee Nagar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Arjunan ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep By the Inspector of Police, Ramajee Nagar Police Station Thiruchirappalli District.
(Crime No.471/2025) ... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 18.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.26870/2025 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Thiruchirappalli and to release the petitioner Vehicles 1.Ashok Leyland tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-47-Q-5652, 2. Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-46-1719 and 3.JCB 3 DX Backhoe loader, bearing registration No.TN-48-Q-6892 and allow the above Revision Case. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (crl.side) 1/10
ORDER
Heard Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the Respondent.
2. The present Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tiruchirappalli, dated 18.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.26870 of 2025, whereby petition under Sections 497 & 503 of BNSS for interim custody of vehicles viz., 1.Ashok Leyland tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-Q-5652, 2. Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-46-1719 and 3.JCB 3 DX Backhoe loader, bearing registration No.TN-48-Q-6892, was rejected on the premise that if the said vehicles are handed over to petitioner, there is a possibility of committing similar offences, and vehicles may be altered without being produced for trial.
3. Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that petitioner is owner of the aforesaid vehicles. The said vehicles were seized by the Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.471 of 2025, dated 15.11.2025 for offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS and Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, 2/10
alleging that petitioner illegally transported 4 units of gravel sand each in two lorries. Petitioner has filed Crl.MP.No.26870 of 2025 before Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, to grant interim custody of the said vehicles and the said petition was dismissed by Court below by impugned order dated 18.12.2025 for the reasons stated supra. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that petitioner is the owner of the said vehicles and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copies of RC Book of said vehicles and the same was perused by Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certificates of the subject vehicles are in the name of petitioner.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the said vehicles may be released subject to conditions and in case, confiscation proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner. 3/10
6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which reads as follows:- "497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody, (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section
(1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.
(3)The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1). (4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita. 4/10
(5)The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter.
503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, held as under:- "17. 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 application for return of such vehicles.
........
21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not 5/10
kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."
8. It may also be relevant to note that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle.1 The same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court that pendency of confiscation proceedings shall not operate as bar against the release of vehicle seized under Section 60 of Excise Act2.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the three vehicles, one vehicle, namely the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 46 1719, was involved in another case and is in custody, and therefore requests that the same may be released in connection with the said case.
10. This Court is of the view that the above request cannot be acceded to, as the prayer for release of vehicle pertains only to the offence in Crime No. 471 of 2025. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy with respect to the interim custody of the particular vehicle involved in subsequent offence, in the manner known to law.
1.Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 2.Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (Alld) 6/10
11. Keeping in view that the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the documents/facts which would prima facie show that Revision Petitioner is the lawful owner of seized vehicles, this Court takes judicial notice that if vehicles in the present case is allowed to be kept in custody and in open yard, it will be exposed to vagaries of weather, resulting in diminishing its value and may in course of time be reduced to scrap.
12. In view thereof, impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.26870 of 2025, is set aside and the seized vehicles viz., 1.Ashok Leyland tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-47-Q-5652, 2.Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-46-1719 and 3.JCB 3 DX Backhoe loader, bearing registration No.TN-48-Q-6892 insofar as it relates to Crime No.471 of 2025, are directed to be released to petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli. (ii) Vehicles shall be released after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicles and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicles. 7/10
(iii) Insofar as the vehicle viz., Tipper Lorry, bearing registration No. TN 46 1719 is concerned, petitioner shall workout his remedy in respect of the interim custody of the said vehicle with regard to the subsequent case, in the manner known to law.
(iv) Petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicles till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he shall surrender the vehicles within one week of being so directed. (v) Petitioner shall give an undertaking before respondent/authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicles in question for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by respondent Police and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicles. (vi) Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated/to be initiated.
(vii) Petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent Police.
(viii) Petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. Book before Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.
8/10
(ix) Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any purpose in the future may be filed before Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, who may consider the same on merits, though this order has been passed by the High Court.
13. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 29.01.2026 Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No gvn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Ramajee Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9/10
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ ,J.
gvn 29.01.2026 10/10