IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM CRL.O.P.No.13397 of 2010 M.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kundadam Police Station, Erode District. (Crime No.144 of 2009) ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode to return the Motor Cycle (Hero Honda Passion) bearing Registration No.TN- 42-7171 marked as M.O.3 in S.C.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode to the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy For respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan Government Advocate (criminal side) ****** O R D E R Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the respondent. 2.Though a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2513 of 2009 was filed for return of vehicle viz., Motor bike (Hero Honda Passion) bearing Registration No.TN-42-7171 belonging to the petitioner, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode had refused to entertain the same for the following reasons: "(1) The petitioner already preferred a revision in C.R.P.No.24 of 2009, in which a order was passed in respect of the very same vehicle on 11.08.2009 directing the petitioner to execute bond and take interim custody of the vehicle, as such how the present petition before this Court is maintainable to be stated. (2) The judgment was made in the above matter in which the above order made in C.R.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is confirmed and the bond also cancelled. Therefore revision before the Hon'ble High Court alone will lie and as such how the revision is maintainable to be stated. 3. Fly sheet to be attached." 3.Since pending disposal of the case in which the petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.C.No.138 of 2009, an order had been passed by such Court in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2009 dated 11.08.2009 directing the petitioner to execute bond and take interim custody of the vehicle, the learned Judge refused to entertain the petition for return of vehicle of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the condition imposed in the order dated 11.8.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2009. 4.This, despite the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992 r/w Section 34 IPC in S.C.No.138 of 2009 by the same Court. The order of the learned Judge is erroneous. When once the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges, the vehicle admittedly belonging to the petitioner and seized from him, cannot be refused return of to the petitioner merely because of non- compliance of the earlier order passed in the revision petition. Hence, the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode dated 13.4.2010 is set aside and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode is directed to return the vehicle (Hero Honda Passion) bearing Regn.No.TN-42-7171 marked as M.O.No.3 in S.C.No.138 of 2009 to the petitioner, on production of the copy of this order. 5.The Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nb To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge,Erode. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Inspector of Police, Kundadam Police Station, Erode District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras-104. +1cc to Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy, Advocate Sr 42656 AR (CO) km/28.6. CRL.O.P.No.13397 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/