Madras High Court
R.Manikandan vs State Through on 14 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
R.Manikandan .. Petitioner
Vs
State through
The Sub Inspector of Police,
H-3 Maraimalainagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu.
(Crime No. 968 of 2021) .. Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
calling for the records of Judicial Magistrate No II Chengalpattu in
C.M.P.No.11004 of 2021 and set aside the order dated 07.01.2022
and thereby direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II at Chengalpattu for
the production of the vehicle “MARUTHI VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS
Car” bearing Registration No. TN 07 CF 4387 (Engine no.
D13A5222735, Chasis No: MA3NFB1SGB100866) before the Court
and return it to the petitioner pending investigation/confiscation
proceedings in Crime No. 968 of 2021 on the file of the respondent
police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shreenik Raj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle,
being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “MARUTHI VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS Car” bearing Registration
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
No. TN 07 CF 4387 (Engine no. D13A5222735, Chasis No:
MA3NFB1SGB100866), which was seized for involvement in an
offence under Section 294 (b), 328, 353 and 307 IPC r/w under
Sections 7, 6(a), 9(2), 20(l) and 22(a) of Cigarette and Other
Tobacco Products Atcs – 2003 r/w u/s 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act in Crime No.968 of 2021 and was duly produced
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, II, Chengalpattu. Thereafter,
the petitioner moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.11004 of 2021 for
interim custody of the vehicle which is dismissed by the order, dated
07.01.2022 on the ground that confiscation proceedings are already
initiated and pending and therefore, it is not desirable to hand over
the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the
same, the present Revision Case is laid before this Court.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even
pending the confiscation proceedings, the vehicle can be returned and
for the said proposition, he relied upon the orders of learned Single
Judges of this Court in (i) Crl.R.C.No.501 of 2011, dated 07.04.2011
in Sakthidevi Vs. State; (ii) Crl.R.C.No.967 of 2020, dated
05.11.2020 in Muthu Vs. State; (iii) Crl.R.C.No.323 of 2021, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
04.06.2021 in Karthik Vs. State; (iv) Crl.R.C.No.631 of 2021, dated
20.10.2021 in Rajendran Vs. State. In all the above cases, the
vehicle was ordered to be returned to the original owner, after taking
note of the fact that confiscation proceedings are initiated.
Therefore, the learned Counsel would pray that the vehicle can be
ordered to be returned which would be subject to the confiscation
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for
the respondent would rely upon the orders of this Court in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.103 of 2018, dated 02.03.2018 in Mohammed
Shakul Hameed Vs. State and in Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2022, dated
13.04.2022 in Raja Vs. State, whereunder, the learned Single
Judges have taken a view that it may not be open for the entrustment
of interim custody, pending confiscation proceedings. He would
further submit that the order of the learned Judge in Mohammed
Shakul Hameed Vs. State is based on the observations of the
Division Bench in David Vs. Shakthivel [(2010(1) L.W. (Crl.)
129] and therefore, would pray that the Revision be dismissed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of
both the sides and perused the material records of the case. Though
there is a cleavage of opinion and two divergent views are being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
taken in the various judgments, which are referred on either side
above, the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in State of M.P.
Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] has held as follows:-
“29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451
CrPC was not available to the Magistrate,
once the authorised officer initiated
confiscation proceedings.”
6. Therefore, I have no other option than to follow the said
view that pending confiscation proceedings, it may not be open for
entrustment of interim custody. But, at the same time, it is seen that
in this case even the Trial Court's order was passed on 07.01.2022
and till date, the respondent have not completed the confiscation
proceedings. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the Criminal
Revision Case on the following terms:-
(i) Since the confiscation proceedings are pending, the
petitioner is not entitled for return of the vehicle;
(ii) The respondent is directed to complete the confiscation
proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the
order;
(iii) If the confiscation proceedings are not completed within the
date stipulated above, then the petitioner will be entitled for return of
the custody of the vehicle on the following conditions:-
(a) The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate II,
Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.11004 of 2021, dated 07.01.2022, is set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
aside.
(b) The petitioner will be entitled for return of the “MARUTHI
VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS Car” bearing Registration No. TN 07 CF
4387 (Engine no. D13A5222735, Chasis No: MA3NFB1SGB100866).
(c) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of the
vehicle and other relevant records to prove its ownership and the
learned Judge, on perusal of the RC book and other records, retaining
the Xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to
the petitioner with a view to use the vehicle.
(d) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any
manner till adjudication is over.
(e) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that it will not
use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce
the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the court
below and as well as by the District Collector of the District or
authorized officer in that behalf by the Government.
(f) The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation
proceedings, if any, initiated and shall produce the vehicle before the
confiscation authority. This order is subjected to the confiscation
proceedings.
(g) The petitioner shall not indulge in the similar offence either
by using the present vehicle or any other vehicle. If the petitioner is
found to be involved in any of similar offence in future either by way
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
using the present vehicle or through any other vehicle, this order of
returning the present vehicle (“MARUTHI VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS
Car” bearing Registration No. TN 07 CF 4387 (Engine no.
D13A5222735, Chasis No: MA3NFB1SGB100866), shall stand
automatically vacated, and this vehicle will be again seized by the
respondent/police and produce before the Court concerned.
14.06.2022
ssm
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
H-3 Maraimalainagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II at Chengalpattu.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022
14.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
