SENTHILKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate II, Attur, in Crl.M.P.No.2521/2021, dtd. 11/11/2021 in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle being Mahindra and Mahindra bearing registration No.TN77 K 4783 is rejected.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate had rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence is triable by the Sessions. It is seen that the FIR is registered only under Sec. 379 IPC and the said findings of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable.

(3.) In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle cannot be allowed to rot and kept wasted, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to return of the vehicle. However, the allegation is that the vehicle was found to be involved in transporting 1 unit of river sand illegally. Therefore, the condition of non-refundable deposit of a sum of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the District Mining Fund maintained by the District Collector is ordered.