Madras High Court
Durairaji vs The State By on 11 December, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.2019 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.2019 of 2023
Durairaji ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State by
The Inspector of Police,
Villupuram Taluk Police Station,
Villupuram District
in Crime No.988 of 2023 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of
Cr.P.C, prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Villupuram in C.M.P.No.9400 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.R.C.No.2019 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order
dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram
in C.M.P.No.9400 of 2023.
2. The petitioner in his two wheeler TVS Jupiter bearing
Registration No.TN32-AM-2925 was seized by the respondent police in
Crime No.988 of 2023 for the offence under section 4(1)(a) of TNP Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was sitting on
his two wheeler near his house. The respondent police on suspicion enquired
the petitioner. During the search, it was found that in a plastic bag, there were
six rum bottles of 360 ml each and ten rum bottles of 180 ml each; totally 16
bottles of liquor from other state. Thereafter, the liquor bottles and the vehicle
were seized and the petitioner was also arrested.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was sitting
on his two wheeler near his house and the respondent police had projected a
false case against him as if he was concealing and carrying liquor bottles of
other state. In this case, the liquor bottles were not seized in the presence of
independent witnessess and there is no mahazar or any record as to how the
liquor bottles were seized and destructed. Since the petitioner had some
previous cases, a false case has been foisted against him. In fact, the
petitioner is taking steps and defending the cases against him, which got the
police enraged against the petitioner's resistive nature and implicated in the
above case. He further submitted that the petitioner is using the said vehicle
for all his daily activities.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly
opposed the contention of the petitioner stating that the liquor bottles had
been found in possession of the petitioner and there are a total of six previous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cases against the petitioner, of which, two are similar in nature. In one of the
previous case, he admitted his guilt and in another case, further action
dropped. There cannot be any reason for closing the case as further action is
dropped, if the police are enraged against the petitioner. He further submitted
that in this case, liquor bottles as well as the vehicle produced before the
Judicial Magistrate by Form-95. Now the confiscation proceedings initiated.
The petitioner to appear before the confiscation authority and to put forth his
case. The lower court recorded about the confiscation proceedings, pending
before the ADSP, Villupuram and dismissed the petition.
6. Considering the submission and perusal of the materials, it is
seen that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which is not in dispute.
Likewise, the petitioner was found sitting on his two wheeler near his house.
The seizure of liquor bottles is a matter of fact to be decided during trial,
Whether it has been in the presence of independent witness or police witness
or seizure, production and destruction have been made in the manner known
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to law can be decided in the trial. In any event, the initiation of confiscation
proceedings would not deny the petitioner for having his vehicle as interim
custody.
7. It is seen that from the date of registration of FIR, the vehicle is
kept in open space and thereby, the value of the vehicle is getting diminished.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus
State of Gujarat reported in 2002 10 SCC 290”, had given guidelines in the
cases of return of property to the owner.
8. Further, this Court in the case of “Sakthidevi Versus State by
The Inspector of Police, Thittachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District
in Crl.R.C.No.501 of 2011”, considered the case of “David Vs. Sakthivel,
Inspector of Police-cum-Station House Officer reported in 2010 1 MLJ
(Crl.) 929” and ordered return of seized vehicle to the owner, which is being
consistently followed, despite initiation of the confiscation proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The vehicle is kept in open exposing to vagaries of weather,
further detention would cause damage to the vehicle, in result, the value of
the vehicle will get diminished and vehicle would become immobile.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court is constrained to set
aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram
made in Cr.M.P.No.9400 of 2023, dated 08.11.2023 and the criminal revision
is allowed.
11. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram is directed to
return the vehicle TVS Jupiter bearing registration No.TN32-AM-2925 to the
petitioner, on the following conditions:-
(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram;
(ii)The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of the vehicle
and other relevant records to prove his ownership. The learned Magistrate
shall peruse the RC book and other records, retain xerox copy of the same
and return originals to the petitioner;
(iii)The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any
manner till adjudication is over;
(iv)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 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.
(v)The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation proceedings if
any initiated and shall produce the vehicle before the confiscation authority.
This order is subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.12.2023
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Villupuram Taluk Police Station,
Villupuram District
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
