Madras High Court
P.M.Perumal vs State Rep. By on 16 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
P.M.Perumal .. Petitioner
Versus
State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Pothatturpet Police Station,
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the order dated 15.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2936 of 2021 passed
by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijay Anand
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle, being HONDA SHINE
Two Wheeler bearing registration No.TN 20 CT 0409, which was seized for
involvement in an offence under Section 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act in Crime No.105 of 2021 and was duly produced before the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.2936 of 2021 for interim custody
of the vehicle which is dismissed by the order, dated 15.12.2021 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 S.Vijay Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth
Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
3. Mr.S.Vijay Anand, the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
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 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, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
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 taken in the various judgments, which
are referred on either side above, the Hon'ble 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 15.12.2021 and till date, the respondent has not completed
the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose off the
Criminal Revision Case on the following terms:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
(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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Pallipattu, in Crl.M.P.No.2936 of 2021, dated 15.12.2021, is set aside.
(b) The petitioner will be entitled for return of the HONDA SHINE Two
Wheeler bearing registration No.TN 20 CT 0409;
(c) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of the vehicle and
other relevant records to prove his 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 he will not use the
vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicle as and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
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 using the present vehicle or
through any other vehicle, this order of returning the present vehicle (HONDA
SHINE Two Wheeler bearing registration No.TN 20 CT 0409), shall stand
automatically vacated, and this vehicle will be again seized by the
respondent/police and produce before the Court concerned.
16.06.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
To
1. The District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate,
Pallipattu.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Pothatturpet Police Station,
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2022
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
