KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the TATA 407 Mini Van, bearing Registration No. TN-74-AQ-8975. According to the petitioner, the alleged vehicle was seized by the respondent on 18. 08. 2019 in connection with a case in Crime No. 88 of 2019 for the offence under Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act , 1957. Seeking return of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, for interim custody. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, by order dated 04. 10. 2019 has dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the General Clauses Act , the Special Court can exercise all the powers of Magistrate, so the Special Court can entertain the petition under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr. P. C. But, the special Court without analyzing the G. O on which it was constituted, has rejected the application. It is well settled that during the pendency of confiscation proceedings, the vehicle needs to be returned to the person, who is entitled to have. This return will have no impact on the confiscation proceeding, as the confiscation proceeding is an independent proceeding.