1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.R.C.(MD)No.52 of 2011 Mohammed Hanifa S/o.Mohammed Sherif 1028 housing Board Colony Villapuram, Madurai. : Petitioner Vs. State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, (Crime No.75/2010) Trichy District. : Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order pased in Cr.M.P.No.3 of 2011 dated 07.01.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manaparai, Trichy District in which the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This petition is filed against the order of the lower Court rejecting the request to delete the condition in production of the vehicle of the petitioner before it on the first working day of every month. 2. The return of the said vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 64 A 616 was directed in favour of the petitioner, who is the owner thereof under orders in Crl.M.P.No.4390 of 2010 dated 30.09.2010 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District. The lower Court had by its of original order inter-alia required the petitioner to surrender the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and to produce the same on the first working day of every month. The petition seeking for the modification of the condition by the lower Court was dismissed on the reasoning that the charge sheet was yet to be filed and case was one, which has been tried by the Sessions court. On such reasoning, the lower Court found inapplicable, the Decision of the Supereme Court cited before it. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Insurance Council and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010 (6) SCC 768) while mandating strict compliance with its orders in the Sundarbhai case and General Insurance Council case (2007 12 SCC 354) issued further directions towards ensuring implementation of statutory provisions and with a view to avoid national waste caused by the neglect of seized vehicles at police stations. 5. The criminal revision shall stand allowed. The concerned lower Court shall, upon production of the certified copy of this order, fix a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 date for production of the vehicle before it. Upon production, the lower Court shall cause photographs of the vehicle to be taken and record Panchnama thereof. The petitioner shall then be at liberty to deal with the vehicle as deemed fit by him. The photographs and Panchnama prepared shall be read as evidence in lieu of marking of the vehicles. 6. This order shall not be read as a determination of rights of ownership/possession etc., of the vehicle. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manaparai. 2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. RR CRL.R.C.(MD)No.52 of 2011 24.01.2011 TR : 01.03.2011 : 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/