IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7-1-2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI CRL.R.C.No.519 of 2008 and Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2008 Chankaran ... Petitioner/ Petitioner vs The State rep by S.I of Police Karungalpalayam Police Station Erode District ... Respondent/ Respondent (Cr.No.655/2006) Revision Petition is filed under Sec.397 and 401 Cr.P.C to call for the records in revise the orders in Crl.Appeal No.188/2007 in Cr.No.655 of 2006 dated 20.12.2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the orders in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2007 in STC No.10534/2006 dated 28.2.2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I Erode District and further direct to hand over the Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.TN-23Y-9099. For petitioner : Mr.S. Kamadevan For respondent :Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner, claiming that he is the owner of a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.TN.23Y-9099, preferred a petition in C.C No.127 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode. The offence was registered under Secs.4(2)(c) and 8(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against three accused on the allegation that they have solicited the witnesses for prostitution. 2. Pending proceedings, the accused admitted the offence and therefore, they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.750/-each. Under such circumstances, the petitioner, claiming that he is not an accused in the case and also claiming to be the owner of the car, preferred a petition for return of the car and while refusing to entertain such petition, the learned Magistrate directed the State to initiate proceedings to confiscate the vehicle. An appeal has been preferred and the same has been dismissed and under such circumstances, the present criminal revision has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused in this case took away his vehicle without informing the purpose of its use and therefore, he does not have any knowledge about the offence committed and submitted that at any rate the vehicle may not be confiscated. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that all the three accused were sitting inside the car and solicited for commission of the offence and therefore, the order passed by the Courts below are well founded. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. 6. The petitioner is not an accused in this case and he is the owner of the car. Admittedly the petitioner does not have any knowledge about the commission of the offence. Though the accused have admitted the offence, the nexus between the petitioner and the accused has not been substantiated. 7. On perusal of the provisions of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, I do not find any provision for confiscation of the vehicle. While suggesting initiation of proceedings for confiscation, the Courts below must have assigned the reasons for the same. 8. Under such circumstances, I do not find any material collected during the course of investigation to substantiate confiscation and therefore the order passed by the Courts below are set aside and the car bearing Registration No.TN.23Y-9099, is ordered to be returned to the petitioner after ascertaining the ownerhsip of the vehicle. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sr To 1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. 2. do thro the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate Erode 5. The Sub Inspector of Police Karungalpalayam Police Station, Erode District. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.S. Kamadevan, Advocate, SR. 633 Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 RSM (CO) kk 21/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/