SARAVANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this revision challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram, dated 30.08.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.1758 of 2010 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of interim custody of the vehicle, namely, Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.TN 07 U 6310.

(2.) MR.T.Munirathnam Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle namely, Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.TN 07 U 6310 and he has been arrayed as A1 in this case for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w Sections 6 and 11 of R.S.Rules, 2000. It is contended that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the respondent police on 26.07.2010 on the allegation that the said vehicle was used for commission of the above said offences, viz., transporting liquor. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he is totally unaware about the purpose for which the vehicle has been taken for hiring. It is contended that the vehicle is exposed to sun and rain and therefore, the condition of the vehicle is deteriorating day-by-day, as a result, the petitioner would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss as the vehicle is the sole source of income for his family. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any valid reason for rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for return of the vehicle except stating in the impugned order that the confiscation proceedings have been initiated.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner is said to be the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, namely, Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.TN 07 U 6310 and he has been implicated in a criminal case for the alleged offences, as stated above, as he has been arrayed as A1 in that case. This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of granting the relief of interim custody of the vehicle of the petitioner as the same is exposed to sun and rain right from the date of seizure, i.e., from 26.07.2010 and further there is also reasonable apprehension of missing important parts of the vehicle and as a result, it is no doubt that the condition of the vehicle would be deteriorated day-by-day and in such event, the petitioner would be put in to great hardship and irreparable loss as the vehicle is the only source of income for the family. IT is also seen that in the impugned order the learned Magistrate has stated that confiscation proceedings have already been initiated and the vehicle has been handed over to the Prohibition Officer. This court is of the considered view that confiscation proceedings is not a bar in granting the relief of interim custody of the vehicle.