1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09.12.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C. (MD).No.944 of 2011 T.Stalin Chandrabose .. Petitioner vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking an order to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.5189 of 2011, dated 29.09.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondent to return the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 67 S 6046. For petitioner : Mr.P.Prabhakaran For respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., seeking an order to set aside the impugned order, dated 29.09.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.5189 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and consequently direct the respondent to return the Mahindra Nissan Tempo TN 67 S 6046, which was produced in the case in R.P.No.129 of 2011 before the said court. 3.It is seen that the above said petition was filed seeking return of vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 67 S 6046, Mahindra Nissan Tempo. 4. As per prosecution case, the vehicle was used by the accused in the case for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and other penal provisions. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and he has not been arrayed as accused in the said case. He has also produced a copy of the R.C book to show that he is the owner of the vehicle. 5. Learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that there is no bad antecedents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 against the petitioner herein. If the vehicle is kept subject to sun and rain in a open place under the custody of the respondent, at the time of the disposal of the case, the same may became a scrap, that will cause loss to the petitioner. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the case, I am of the view that returning the vehicle would not prejudice the criminal case, hence, it is just and reasonable to pass a conditional order accordingly, the respondent is directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner complying with the following conditions: i) the petitioner shall furnish security for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel; ii) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate, as and when required; iii) the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the vehicle by producing the R.C. Book and other relevant records; iv) the petitioner shall not alienate or alter the vehicle in any manner; and v) the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future." Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Eraniel. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.P.Prabhakaran Advocate, Sr.No.43154 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.944 of 2011 TSVN SMA/14.12.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/