1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 07.09.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.721 of 2011 S.Madhan Sellan ... Petitioner Vs The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Crime No.209 of 2011. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4611 of 2011 dated 22.07.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. For Petitioner : M/s. Porkodi Karnan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4611 of 2011 dated 22.07.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. The petitioner is third party in the case in Crime No.209 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. He is the owner of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.TN 59 AR 3700. The vehicle is said to have involved for the offence under Section 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It is alleged that the accused transported 60 bottles of liquor in the dickey of the car. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai dismissed the application by observing that already the vehicle was involved in another criminal case in which original R.C. book for the vehicle has been produced, that if the vehicle is given to the petitioner for interim custody, there is further possibility for him to utilise the vehicle for commission of another offence and that the petitioner may not produce the vehicle before the trial Court at the time of trial. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, he does not have any knowledge about the case and the alleged involvement of his vehicle in the offences, that the original R.C. book has been produced in another case and hence, a certified copy was produced in this case as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, but it was refused and that it is wrong to say that the petitioner will use this vehicle on future occasion for some other offences. 4. Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) raise his objections for release of the vehicle. 5. Before the Court below, the respondent police did not express any objection for the release of the vehicle and that the vehicle may be released. But it was stated that the vehicle may be given interim custody, subject to the production of records. If the vehicle is kept in the police station, it would left uncared and the engine and other spare parts will get deteriorated by exposure to sun and rain. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat), wherein Their Lordships have formulated the guidelines for disposal of the vehicle. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "The procedure for disposal of seized articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and Narcotics drugs suggested. Further Magistrate directed to pass appropriate orders immediately and articles are not kept for a long time at the police Station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. The said object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly." 6. Following the guidelines as stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.4611 of 2011 dated 22.07.2011 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to return the said vehicle for interim custody of the petitioner on the following conditions: i) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. ii) the petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate, as and when required; and iii) the petitioner shall prove his ownership of the vehicle by producing the certified copy of the R.C. Book and other relevant records; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 iv) the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in any manner; v) the petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future." Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. akv rl/4c – 19.9.2011 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.721 of 2011 07.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/