1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.124 of 2011 and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2218 of 2011 Crl.R.C.(MD) No.124 of 2011: Anbu . . . Revision Petitioner Vs. 1.State by Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D. Police, Pattukottai Police Station, In Cr.No.346 of 2010. . . . 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition, Thanjavur. . . . 2nd Respondent R2 is impleaded as per the orders of this Hon'ble High Court made in Crl.R.C.124/2011 vide its Order Dt. 15.02.11 by CTSJ Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai in Cr.M.P.No.1430 of 2011 dated 05.02.2011 and to direct the Additional Superintendent of Police (Prohibition) Thanjavur to return the petitioner's TATA INDIGO LX vehicle bearing registration No.TN 49 AZ 2999 with all accessories including DVD system with speaker, 5 tyres with jockey and remote security systems etc. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents: Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Criminal side) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2218 of 2011: State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, (Cr.No.346/2010). . . . Petitioner/Respondent/Complainant Vs. A.R.Anbu . . . Respondent/Petitioner/Accused Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the Order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2010, dated 31.12.2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur and confirm the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.11481 of 2010 dated 30.10.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For petitioner : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Criminal side) For respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan C O M M O N O R D E R Both the cases have been filed with regard to the release of the vehicle, namely TATA INDIGO LX bearing registration No.TN 49 AZ 2999 by way of interim custody and hence, they are disposed by this common order. 2. The revision petitioner originally filed Crl.M.P.No.11481 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai for the release of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed on 30.10.2010. The Revision petitioner challenging the said order, preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur and the said revision was ordered on 31.12.2010 and the vehicle in question was ordered to be released in favour of the revision petitioner by way of interim custody subject to the following conditions: "1. Revision Petitioner is to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai; 2. In addition to the above, revision petitioner is further directed to deposit cash security of Rs.25,000/- in the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai; 3. Revision petitioner is directed to deposit all the original documents i.e., T.O. forms duly signed by the previous owner i.e., Thiru. Kannan to be kept along with the Registration Certificate book, which was already seized by the Respondent Police and RC Book and the relevant T.O. forms in original, are to be deposited with the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai till the disposal of the case; 4. Revision petitioner is to maintain the vehicle without change the colour, Chasis No.601453GSZPA0485; Engine No.4DICOR 05ESWO3332; and the condition of the vehicle in any manner prejudicial to the trial of the case;" Challenging the said order, the State has preferred Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2218 of 2011. 3. The revision petitioner after the orders passed in the said revision, approached the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai for the release of the said vehicle. But the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai vide his letter in D.No.35/2011 dated 06.01.2011 addressed to the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition, Thanjavur to cause the production of the said vehicle as well as the Original Registration Certificate book into court for the purpose of allotting C.P. Number for the said vehicle and for returning the same to the revision petitioner through Court. Since there was no response, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai vide her letter in D.No.88 of 2011 dated 12.01.2011, sent a reminder and even for the said reminder, the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police (Prohibition), Thanjavur has not responded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. The revision petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1430 of 2011 for implementation of the order passed by the revisional Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai by order dated 05.01.2011 has recorded the fact of no response on the part of Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police (Prohibition), Thanjavur and stated that the revision petitioner is at liberty to initiate necessary contempt proceedings before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Court under E.C. Act Cases, Thanjavur. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that since the revisional Court vide order dated 30.10.2010 has ordered return of vehicle, in all fairness, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Prohibition), Thanjavur should have produced the vehicle and also the original R.C. Book so as to enable the jurisdictional Magistrate to return the vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is the owner of the vehicle and he will abide any condition imposed for return of the vehicle by way of interim custody. 6. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that since the confiscation proceedings were already initiated the remedy available to the revision petitioner, is to prefer appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the revision petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and he is an habitual offender as he is already involved in two other case of similar in nature and if the vehicle is handed over to him by way of interim custody, there is likelihood of using the vehicle in similar kind of offences. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order dated 31.12.2010 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2010 by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Court for EC Act Cases, Thanjavur. 7. The Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials filed in the form of typed sets of papers. 8. A perusal of the order dated 31.12.2010 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2010 would indicate that the revision petitioner is not an accused in the said Crime and taking into consideration of the fact that the vehicle is kept in the open place subject to the vagaries of weather, this Court is of the view that the custody of the vehicle is to be granted to the revision petitioner by way of interim custody, subject to the conditions. 9. Admittedly no final order has been passed in the confiscation proceedings and therefore, the question of preferring appeal against the confiscation proceedings does not arise in the present case. 10. A single Bench of this Court in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 191 - Sundaram Finance Ltd., v. State of T.N. has taken into consideration the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "11. 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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 cases 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 entitled would rather have the sale proceeds together with interest, than nothing at all." 11. In the light of the above said decision, which followed the earlier decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the case projected by the prosecution. Hence, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2218 of 2011 is dismissed. 12. This Court taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the petitioner is not the actual owner and he is a habitual offender is of the view that the vehicle in question is to be returned by adding one more condition to the conditions imposed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Court for EC Act Cases in its order dated 31.12.2010 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2010: "The Revision petitioner shall satisfy the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai with regard to the ownership of the vehicle." 13. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Prohibition), Thanjavur is directed to produce the vehicle TATA INDIGO LX bearing Registration No.TN 49 AZ 2999 and also the Original Registration Certificate of the said vehicle before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai so as to enable the said Court to return the vehicle to the revision petitioner by way of interim custody subject to the fulfillment of above said conditions. If the revision petitioner violates any one of the conditions, it is open to the prosecuting agency to seize the vehicle, in accordance with law. 14. The Criminal Revision case (MD) No.124 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR sj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 To: 1.The Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai. 3.The Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D. Police, Pattukottai Police Station. 4.The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Prohibition), Thanjavur. 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DM::2011:JULY::04:: Crl.R.C.(MD) No.124 of 2011 and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2218 of 2011 21.06.2011 5P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/