MALAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Cr. M.P. No. 804 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 declining to return the vehicle involved in the Crime on the ground that since Confiscation proceedings have been taken, the vehicle cannot be returned to the owner of the vehicle. The Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle namely TATA ACE 22100 MMWB and according to the Petitioner, the vehicle was forcibly taken by the Second Respondent-Police from his house. Later he came to know that the said vehicle is said to have been involved in the case in Crime No. 14 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Section 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for carrying 110 litres of illicit liquor in the said vehicle. The Petitioner is arrayed as Accused in this case and he filed a Petition under Section 457 r/w 451, Cr.P.C. seeking for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that it is kept in open space exposed to sun and rain and the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the objections on the Respondent's side raised, dismissed the said Petition holding that it was not feasible to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the Petitioner as Confiscation proceedings was in progress. The said order was challenged in the present Criminal Revision case.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to properly consider the scope of the powers conferred under Sections 457 r/w 451 Cr.P.C. and that on an erroneous impression that no interim custody of the vehicle can be granted to anybody claiming to be the owner or the person entitled to the custody thereof, if proceedings for confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is under contemplation. Therefore, he would contend that the order is liable to be set aside and the relief sought for by the Revision Petitioner should be granted.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 5278 of 2007 dated 09.07.2010 in Sundaram Finance Ltd., rep, by its Branch Manager v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri Taluk and another,2011 1 MWN 437. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to yet another order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sakthidevi v. State by the Inspector of Police, Thitachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District, Crl. R.C. No. 501 of 2011.