Bindhu v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Bindhu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Tahsildar, Killiyur Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner namely Eachier Goods Carrier bearing Reg.No.KL 43 D0613.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader 1/8
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up 'for final disposal' at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner seeks interim custody of the petition mentioned vehicle. The writ petition was listed for admission on 15.02.2023. On the said date, a submission was made on the side of the respondents as if there is no knowledge about the seizure of the vehicle. I therefore called upon the petitioner to take photograph of the vehicle indicating its custody in the premises of the Taluk Office, Killiyur and produced the same before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced photographs indicating that the vehicle is parked inside the premises of the second respondent.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader clarifies that what he meant was that the second respondent did not seize the vehicle.
4. I express my displeasure over the manner in which instructions has been communicated to the learned Additional Government Pleader. The vehicle 2/8
in question is very much lying in the Taluk office campus, Killiyur. The second respondent could not plead ignorance. Today, the Taluk Survey Officer is present in person before this Court. He states that he seized the vehicle for violation of the Essential Commodities Act in November 2022. For the last three months, he had not sent a report to the first respondent. Since the District Revenue Officer has been shown as the first respondent, instructions must have been obtained from the first respondent on 15.02.2023 itself. Be that as it may, it is admitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the confiscation proceedings are still pending.
5.In similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.2679 of 2020 (Sathiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others) has passed the following order:- "Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle belongs to the petitioner herein. It appears that the said vehicle was involved in Crime No. 231 of 2019, registered on the file of the third respondent under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The petitioner's son Karthick was arrested and he was found in possession of 384 Brandy Bottles. The petitioner's son was said to have driven the said 3/8
vehicle at the relevant point of time. The grievance of the petitioner is that the vehicle in question has not been produced before the Judicial Magistrate till date. His further apprehension is that even without complying the necessary procedures, the second respondent is likely to auction the vehicle, which necessitated the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 06.06.2019 made in Crl.O.P.No.11945 of 2019, wherein the learned judge has observed as follows:- 11.The provisions of Section 49A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court to exercise its power under Section 451 or 457 of Cr.P.C. The confiscation of a vehicle involved in the commission of an offence under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act is not only punitive in nature but also a deterrent. When a vehicle is involved in the commission of offence under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and there are prima facie materials to show that the owner of the vehicle did not have any knowledge or connivance in the commission of the offence, he can always file an application for return of vehicle under Section 451 or 457 of Cr.P.C. But, however the Court while exercising its powers will have to do it with care and caution and should provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and also must keep in mind the spirit behind Section 49A 4/8
of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and its benevolent object.
12.Even though, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with the case under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the ratio in the said Judgment can be applied even in a case where confiscation proceedings have been initiated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 13.In view of the above, the reason given by the Court below for returning the petition filed by the petitioner is unsustainable and the same is hereby setaside. The Court below is directed to consider the petitioner afresh by keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Division bench referred supra and after affording an opportunity to the prosecution. This exercise shall be completed by the Court below within a period of one month from the date of a receipt of copy of this order.
4. The learned Government counsel wanted to rely upon G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 22.10.2019, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VIII) Department to sustain his contention that the second respondent can very well auction the vehicle in question. But the said Government order will come into play after the confiscation is done under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. In this case, there is nothing on record to show the fulfillment of formalities set out in Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Therefore, the question of auctioning the vehicle even without 5/8
formal confiscation does not arise at all. Also, it does not mean that the vehicle involved in criminal case should not be produced before the Jurisdictional Court. In fact, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code envisage that the seized vehicle should be produced before the Jurisdictional Court and the party concerned can avail the right to claim the vehicle by way of interim or final custody.
5.Therefore, I direct the respondents to produce the vehicle in question before the jurisdictional criminal Court without any further delay. Upon such production, it is open to the petitioner to apply for return under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Of course, the authorities are at liberty to take action to confiscate the vehicle as per law.
6. In the above terms, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs."
6.The petitioner's counsel on instructions gives an undertaking that the petitioner will not alienate the petition mentioned vehicle till the confiscation proceedings are over. He also gives a further undertaking that the petitioner will also produce the vehicle as and when the respondents call for the vehicle for enquiry and cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents. 6/8
7. I make it clear that it is very much open to the respondents herein to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings. The only relief that I am granting is interim custody of the vehicle. I have not gone into the merits of the matter. In future, whenever the vehicles are seized by any authority, a memorandum shall be prepared immediately and on the spot and duly communicated to the vehicle owner. If the driver is present on the spot, the copy of the same shall be served on the driver and acknowledgement shall also be taken. If this procedure is not adhered to, consequences may follow.
8. Subject to these conditions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 20.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Tahsildar, Killiyur Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
7/8
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi 20.02.2023 8/8