Madras High Court
Bibin Stalin ... Revision vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 2 November, 2021
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.786 of 2021
Bibin Stalin ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/
Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. ...Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned
order, dated 13.08.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3483 of 2021, on the file of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil confirming
the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kuzhithurai in
Crl.M.P.No.4153 of 2021, dated 19.07.2021 and to set aside the same and further
direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to return the original RC
book of the petitioner's Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN 01 AC 6181.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order, dated
13.08.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3483 of 2021 by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil confirming the order, dated 19.07.2021,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.4153 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kuzhithurai.
2. The petitioner Bibin Stalin is the owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-01-AC-6181. The respondent police seized the said vehicle
in connection with Cr.No.65 of 2021, which was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 352 and 392 of IPC. After recovering the
vehicle in the above said crime number, the respondent police has produced the
same before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai and thereafter, the
learned Magistrate after receipt of the said vehicle assigned with RP number and
kept the vehicle in the Court custody. In the meantime, the petitioner herein filed
an application in Crl.M.P.No.1499 of 2021 before the said Magistrate, wherein,
he seeks the relief of handing over the said vehicle for interim custody. The
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai on 21.02.2021 allowed the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
application and handed over the vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody on
condition that the petitioner has to produce the original RC book which pertains
to the said vehicle.
3. In view of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has
produced the original RC book pertains to the said vehicle and got a vehicle for
interim custody. Thereafter, before the same Court, he filed one another
application in Crl.M.P.No.4351 of 2021, wherein, he prayed to return the RC
book to his custody. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai by order
dated 19.07.2021 dismissed the said application. Against which, the petitioner
herein preferred an application in Crl.M.P.No.3483 of 2021 before the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. The learned
District Judge, by order dated 13.08.2021 after confirming the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, dismissed the application filed by
the petitioner.
4. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred this
Criminal Revision Case praying to set aside the order passed by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
6. It is the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner being the resident of Kanyakumari District used to go
to Kerala for taking treatment and on such occasion, the police officers, who are
all serving in Kerala Border, insisted him to produce the original RC book and
therefore, it would necessary for the petitioner to show the RC book before the
said authority. Only because of the said reason, the petitioner has filed an
application before the Courts below for returning the RC book.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent police raised an objection stating that if the RC book is returned to the
petitioner there will be a chance of selling the property by the petitioner.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsels on either side are
considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
9. In general, if any vehicle is recovered as a case property that should be
produced before the Magistrate only for the purpose of marking the said vehicle
as a material object. Further, the ownership of the said vehicle is to be confirmed
only at the end of the trial. In the said circumstances, only after completion of the
trial while at the time of pronouncing the judgment, the trial Court has passed an
order in respect to the said property. Therefore, it would be necessary to keep the
custody of the said vehicle till the disposal of the case. Only to avoid further
complication in producing the said vehicle, the vehicles recovered in various
cases were returned to the parties with the condition that the original RC book
pertains to the said vehicle has to be produced.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
that if the order is passed for returning the original RC book, there may be a
chance to the owner of the vehicle to sold out the said vehicle to others. If such
things are happened, the same leads to further complication. Herein also, in view
of the above situation, this Court is not inclined to pass a positive order in favour
of the petitioner. If the original RC book is needed to the petitioner for the
particular purpose, he has to mention the specific reason. Here it is a case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
without mentioning any proper reason and only by mentioning the flimsy reason,
the petitioner herein has filed an applications before the Courts below and the
same has been rightly dismissed. It is for the petitioner to show the RC book
Xerox copy to the police officer while crossing the said border and instead of the
same, by filing the petition to return the original RC book is unnecessary and
therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not projected any sufficient
reason for allowing this revision.
11. However, this Court by considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, directs the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai to dispose the case
in Cr.No.65 of 2021 as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
02.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
To:-
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
3.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.786 of 2021
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
am
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.786 of 2021
02.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
