M.Arunadevi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.03.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Crl.RC(MD)No.90 of 2019 M.Arunadevi ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.61 of 2018) ... Respondent/Respondent Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.6842/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar District dated 24.10.2018.

For Revision Petitioner: Mr.M.Murugan for Mr.R.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle (Lorry) bearing Registration No.TN-59-E-1089. On 15.05.2018, the respondent found the said vehicle carrying sand in violation of the provision of the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957. The respondent registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2018 under Sections 379, 109 IPC & 21(5) of Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act, 1957, and seized the said vehicle. Seeking return of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, for interim custody. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 24.10.2018, has dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3.Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has strongly objection to release the vehicle.

4.The only ground upon which the lower court has dismissed the petition is that already confiscation proceeding had been initiated under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act, 1957, as against the vehicle in question. According to the lower Court, since such proceeding was pending, the petition for interim custody of the vehicle is not maintainable. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is not correct. It is well settled that during the pendency of confiscation proceeding, the vehicle needs to be returned to the person, who is entitled to have. The return will have no impact on the confiscation proceeding, as the confiscation proceeding is an independent proceeding. 5.In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.

(b) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(c) The petitioner shall not make any alteration of the vehicle;

(d) The petitioner shall produce the same before the Court as an when required, until final order is passed in the confiscation proceedings.

6.The authority under the Mines and Minerals Development Regulations Act, 1957 may proceed with the confiscation proceedings and the petitioner shall obey any order that may be passed in the said proceeding by the authority.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.R.SELVARAJ, Advocate ( SR-52888[F] dated 11/03/2019 ) Crl.RC(MD)No.90 of 2019 11.03.2019 VSD ES/12.03.2019/3P/5C