Mr.Appusamy vs The State Rep.By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 6027 Mad

                                                               1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 08.03.2021

                                                       CORAM

                               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                              CRL.O.P.No.4626 of 2019

                     Mr.Appusamy                                               ...Petitioner

                                                        .Vs.



                     The State rep.by its
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Kannankuruchi Police Station,
                     Salem District.                                          .. Respondent

                     (Crime No.573 of 2016)



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order and modify the
                     conditions 1 to 8 imposed in C.M.P.No.36 of 2019 order dated
                     15.11.2019 on the file of the 1st Additional Assistant Sessions
                     Judge, Salem.


                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan

                                      For Respondent : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz
                                                       Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                      2

                                                             ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed

challenging the conditions imposed by the Court below while

allowing the application filed by the petitioner for the return of

vehicle.

2.The respondent police registered an FIR in Crime

No.573 of 2016, for an offence under Section 323, 353 and 307 of

IPC. During the course of investigation, the vehicle belonging to

the petitioner was seized. The petitioner is the owner of the

vehicle and he is not an accused in the present case.

3.The petitioner filed an application for return of

vehicle before the Court below and the Court below allowed the

application by an order dt.15.11.2019, by imposing the following

conditions.

“In fine this petition is allowed and return of JCB Vehicle bearing bearing Regn.No.KA 13 M 4452 for the Interim custody to the petitioner is ordered on the following conditions:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs) along with a Solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of this Court;

2. The petitioner shall produce National Security Bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) drawn in the name of the petitioner;

3. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before this Court on the first Thursday of every month during working days without fail.

4. The petitioner shall not effect any change or alteration in the physical features of the vehicle without the permission of the Court;

5. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before this Court as and when required and also at the time of evidence of Investigation Officer for the purpose of identification;

6. The petitioner shall not effect any transfer by way of sale or alienation, mortgage, pledge or hypothecation of the said vehicle to any Finance Corporation till disposal of the case;

7. The petitioner shall also produce the vehicle on the date of judgment of the case.

8. On violation of any of the conditions, order passed for interim custody will be cancelled without notice.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the conditions

imposed by the Court below virtually prevents the petitioner from

using the vehicle and these conditions goes against the guidelines https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ that have already been issued by the Apex Court and this Court in

various reported judgments.

5.Heard Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6.It is now a settled law that when it comes to return

of vehicle to the owner, who is not an accused person, the most

preferred manner in which such applications must be disposed of

would be to cause the photographs of the vehicle and record the

panchanama. These photographs and panchana that is prepared

by the concerned Court shall be read as an evidence and it can be

marked instead of making the vehicle itself a materials object in

the case. The Court below did not take into consideration this

settled position of law.

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to

interfere with the conditions imposed by the Court below. The

matter is remitted back to the Court below and the Court below is

directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Court in Sunderbhal Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujraj reported in

AIR 2003 SC 638, Selvam and Others v. State by Inspector of

Police, Salem District and Others reported in (2012) 2 CTC 549

and K.Ramar v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Inspector of

Police, Virudhunagar District reported in (2013) 1 MLJ Crl 101.

The Court below shall cause the photographs of the vehicle to be

taken and record Panchanama thereof. This process shall be

completed by the Court below and appropriate orders shall be

passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

8.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed

with the above directions.

08.03.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No KP Note: Issue order copy on 11.03.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

To

1.Inspector of Police, Kannankuruchi Police Station, Salem District.

2.1st Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ KP

CRL.O.P.No.4626 of 2021

08.03.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/