VELUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present action is one resorted to be taken under sec. 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for a direction to release the tanker lorry bearing registration No. TCB. 7168 involved in Cr. No. 909/ 93 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruppur (respondent ).

(2.) ONE Velusamy (petitioner) is stated to be the owner of the said tanker lorry. On 6. 8. 1993 at about 00. 30 hours, the said lorry was proceeding towards Udamalpet. The Prohibition and Enforcement Wing Police personnel stopped the said lorry near Sithampalam at Bridge No. 44/1 and checked the same. In the process of checking and inspection it was found out that the said tanker lorry contained three chambers. The middle chamber was found filled with oil and water and the front and rear chambers were filled with rectified spirit of 5,000 litres. For transporting the said quantity of rectified spirit, there was no licence or permit. The lorry was stated to have been driven by one Palanisami and there was a cleaner in the said lorry going by the name Selvaraj. The said lorry had been seized besides the arrest of the driver and the cleaner. A case in the crime number as aforesaid has been registered under Sec. 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Rules 5 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules and Sec. 328, I. P. C. The driver and cleaner after their arrest had been remanded to custody. The seized lorry had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

(3.) AS against the said dismissal the petitioner appeared to have filed two writ appeals in W. A. Nos. 400 and 401 of 1994. W. A. No. 400 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W. M. P. 3826 of 1994 while W. A. No. 401 of 1994 is directed against the dismissal of W. M. P. No. 3827 of 1994. Even at the time of admission it is said that W. A. No. 401 of 1994 praying for the interim custody of the lorry had been dismissed while M. Velusamy v. The secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and another, W. A. No. 400 of 1994 had been disposed of even at the time of admission by making the following observation: 'further proceedings in the case can go on and the final order also can be passed but the order shall not be given effect to until further orders from this Court. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections if any to the show cause notice in three weeks from today. . . . . .'