SAKTHIDEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Nagapattinam dated 08.02.2011 in Crl. MP.No. 472/2011 in Crime No. 314/2010, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of the return of the vehicle, viz., Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN-51-P-2826.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Tata Sumo Car and she is not an accused in the case and only the husband of the revision petitioner is an accused who has been implicated for the offences u/s.4[1][aaa] read with 4[1-A] of TNP Act and u/s.5 & 6 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on the ground of initiation of the confiscation proceedings. It is contended that this court held in number of matters that pending confiscation proceedings is not a bar for the return of vehicle.

(3.) Mr.V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the vehicle involved in this matter was seized for the commission of the offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the confiscation proceedings were already initiated and the same is pending as on date. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would place reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Contempt Petition No. 1156/2009 David v. Shakthivel, Inspector of Police-cum-Station House Officer] dated 08.01.2010. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Division Bench has held that the granting the relief of interim custody u/s.451 Cr.P.C., in respect of the vehicle involved in the Prohibition offences is not automatic one and the spirit of the provision u/s.14[4] of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act should be taken note of and the power u/s.451 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised judiciously. It is also pointed out that certain guidelines were also stipulated by the Division Bench in the said decision.