1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4278 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 25.02.2011 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur confirming the order dated 23.12.2010 passed in Cr.M.P.No.12364 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to hand over the load Auto bearing Registration No.TN- 69-B-8368 to the petitioner for interim custody. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Michael Bharathi For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-69-B-8368 and his vehicle was remanded in connection with Crime No.235/10 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Section 379 I.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, for interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and the petition was dismissed and aggrieved over the same, this petition is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner is not the accused in the above case and the case of the prosecution is that four cases of fire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 crackers were stolen by the accused persons and they were taken in the vehicle belonging to the petitioner and if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in open, the value of the vehicle would be diminished and therefore, the vehicle may be given to the petitioner subject to any conditions. 3. Heard the learned Government advocate (Crl. Side), who would submit that though the petitioner is not the accused in the above case, his son is the 4th accused and the vehicle was taken by his son for committing the theft. 4. It is seen from the order of the Court below that the respondent police has filed a counter objecting to custody of the vehicle to the petitioner stating that the 4th accused may make attempt to change the structure of the vehicle and therefore, the vehicle should not be given to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is not an accused and if the vehicle is allowed to expose to sun and rain, the utility of the vehicle will be affected and the value of the vehicle would be diminished. 6. In a similar circumstances, our Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to the owner of the vehicle, subject to certain conditions, to avoid the vehicle being damaged by exposing to sun and rain. Further in the judgment rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5278 of 2007 and 2744 of 2010, dated 09.07.2010, this Court has observed as follows: “This court is of the firm opinion that return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception it is today. The clear dictate of the Hon'ble Apex court in this regard is followed more in the breach than in observance. Given the facilities of the modern day, there hardly is any scope to think that evidence relating to vehicles cannot be held in altered form. Causing of photographs and resort to videography, together with recording such evidence as befits a particular case would well serve the purpose. In case where return of vehicles is sought and the claim therefor is highly contested, resort to sale of vehicle and credit of the proceeds in fixed deposits pending disposal of the case would be to the common good. None gain when the mere shell or the remnants of the vehicle are returned to the person entitled thereto, after completion of the trial. It would be no surprise to find that several vehicles have not been so much as claimed after completion of trial, because of the worthless state they have been reduced to. It is but natural to expect that a person eventually https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 entitled would rather have the sale proceeds together with interest than nothing at all.” 7. As the objection of the respondent was that the 4th accused viz., the son of the petitioner may try to change the structure of the vehicle, the vehicle can be handed over to the petitioner subject to certain conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties; (ii) The petitioner shall produce the original registration certificate to prove his ownership before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi; (iii) The petitioner shall undertake not to alienate and encumber the vehicle without getting prior permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi; (iv)The petitioner shall not change the colour or alter the physical features of the vehicle; and (v)The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi for enquiry. 8. Subject to the above conditions, this petition is allowed and the the lower Court orders are set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Sub-Inspector of Police, Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur. 3.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai vsm ssk/17.05.2011 /5c -3p/- Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4278 of 2011 26.04.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/