← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/466/2025allowed

Abhijith Anil v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

2025-04-15Honourable Mr Justice K.Murali Shankar6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Abhijith Anil ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. through The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Periyakulam, Theni District.

(Crime No.53 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to set aside the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam in Cr.M.P.No.602 of 2025 and allow the criminal revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in 1/6

Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, dismissing the petition filed under Section 497 B.N.S.S.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-69-D-8192. On 28.01.2025, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 340(2), 318(4) and 303(2) BNS and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and seized the above said vehicle for the alleged transportation of M-sand by forging transit pass.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, for returning of the said vehicle in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2025 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 21.03.2025, has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has now come forward with the present revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2/6

learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and is the second accused in this case, that the petitioner is not having any previous case and that the said vehicle was not involved in any other cases. He would further submit that the value of the vehicle is worth about Rs.40 lakhs.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-69-D-8192 is owned by the petitioner, that the said vehicle has no connection whatever with the alleged occurrence, that if the vehicle is kept in open place, the value of the said vehicle will get deteriorated and that therefore interim custody may be granted to the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that if the vehicle is kept in open place exposing to sun and rain, the value of the vehicle will be deteriorated and no purpose will be served in 3/6

keeping the vehicle in custody, this Court is inclined to allow the revision and thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2025, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.602 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, is hereby set aside and the vehicle/ Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-69-D-8192, is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the confiscation proceedings to be taken by the concern Department or by the Court on the following conditions:- (a) the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as non-refundable deposit for the said vehicle to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust, Theni District;

(b) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial 4/6

Magistrate, Periyakulam;

(c) the petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam;

(d) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle; (e) the petitioner shall not alienate and shall not make any alteration in the vehicle;

(f) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Court and before the respondent police as and when required; 15.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No csm 5/6

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

csm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Periyakulam, Theni District.

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

Order made in Dated: 15.04.2025 6/6