1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 25.07.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.569 of 2011 Jeeva .. Petitioner/Sole Accused vs. State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.148/2011) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, in Cr.M.P. No.3082 of 2011 dated 07.06.2011. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Mahendrapathy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to Cr.M.P.No.3082 of 2011, dated 07.06.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur and to set aside the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner/accused is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-K-9997 which was seized in the present case in Crime No.148/2011, on the file of the Sattur Taluk Police Station, under Section 379 of IPC alleging that the vehicle was used for transporting batteries which were stolen from Airtel towers. He filed an application before the Court below for temporary custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sattur, has dismissed the petition citing other existing cases, three in numbers, and also observing that if the vehicle is given custody to the petitioner, there is every possibility for him to use the vehicle again for committing the like crime. 5. Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having a daughter, that he has no knowledge about the usage of the vehicle in the alleged crime, that he is in a lurch, that he got the temporary custody order in the pending cases and that no such instances will occur in future. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would strongly oppose stating that the petitioner involved his vehicle in three like crimes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 earlier and if it is released, he will indulge further in the similar offences. 7. There were three cases registered against the petitioner/accused viz., Crime No.63/2011 registered under Section 379 of IPC on the file of the Ettayapuram Police Station, Crime No.289/2011 registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC on the file of the Nilakkottai Police Station and Crime No.139/2010 registered under Section 379 of IPC on the file of the Poovanthi Police Station in Sivagangai District. I do not find any wrong in the findings recorded by the Court below, that there is every possibility for the petitioner/accused to indulge in similar offences in future if the vehicle is released. In this case, I do not find any valid ground for grant of temporary custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and the order passed by the Court below is confirmed. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, SATTUR. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATTUR TALUK POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. Crl.RC.(MD).No.569 of 2011 25.07.2011 srm RJ/5.8.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/