1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :17.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.229 of 2011 Koolandi . . . Revision Petitioner Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Madurai, (Crime No.471 of 2010) . . . Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.279 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, dated 01.03.2011 and set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran Government Advocate (Criminal side) O R D E R Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent. 2. The respondent has registered a case in Crime No.471 of 2010 against one Chelliah S/o. Irulandi and one Murugesapandian S/o. Rajappa for the alleged commission of offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 and TN-59 Y 0309 - TATA 407 van in which the contraband was said to have been transported was seized and the custody of the van was handed over the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer. 3. The petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of the said vehicle filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.279 of 2011 under Section 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C. to produce the vehicle and return the same to him by way of interim custody. The said petition was opposed by the respondent/State. 4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III (CCIW), Madurai, after taking into consideration of the rival submissions found that as per Section 6 A 06 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the jurisdictional Collector is the competent authority to deal with the vehicle in which the essential commodities had been transported and if only the vehicle is produced to him, he can order for releasing the vehicle. Citing the said reason, the petition filed by the petitioner for return of the vehicle was dismissed and challenging the vires of the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in Gajendran v. State through the Inspector of Police reported in 2008(6) CTC 846, wherein a Single Bench of this Court has placed reliance on (i) C.M.Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943 and (ii) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in SLP (Crl.) No.2755 of 2002 and held that it is not necessary to produce the vehicle as a condition precedent for filing a petition for return of the vehicle. In the said decision, the order of the Court below was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the above cited decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand and therefore, prays for quashment of the order. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit the petitioner had sold the vehicle in favour of A.1 and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain the present petition and if the vehicle is released, it will be used for similar offences. 8. This Court after taking into consideration, the rival submissions is of the considered view that the impugned order is to be set aside for the following reason: A Single Bench of this Court after placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in C.M.Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943 and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in SLP (Crl.) No.2755 of 2002 held that the production of the vehicle seized before jurisdictional Court is not a condition precedent for the return of the vehicle in a petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. 9. In the considered opinion of the Court, the above cited decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the present case. 10. In the result, the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 is set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III (CCIW), Madurai for fresh adjudication, in the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported in Gajendran v. State through the Inspector of Police reported in 2008(6) CTC 846. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, (CCIW), Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID, Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.229 of 2011 17.03.2011 sj PAM 31.03.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/