Madras High Court
Kalai Selvi vs The District Revenue Officer on 10 May, 2023
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.05.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
Kalai Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department,
Trichy. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to
release the HERO MAESTRO two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-63-
AT-1555 seized by the second respondent on 13.04.2023 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent of
both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage itself.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle was seized in connection with Crime
No.45 of 2023 registered on the file of the respondent for the offence under
Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. It is a two wheeler. It is not in dispute that till now no
confiscation order under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act has
been passed. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has not been produced
before the jurisdictional Criminal Court.
3.In similar circumstances, this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 in
W.P.(MD)No.2679 of 2020 (Sathiah v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others) has
passed the following order:-
“Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petition mentioned vehicle belongs to the petitioner
herein. It appears that the said vehicle was involved in Crime No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
231 of 2019, registered on the file of the third respondent under
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The petitioner's son Karthick
was arrested and he was found in possession of 384 Brandy
Bottles. The petitioner's son was said to have driven the said
vehicle at the relevant point of time. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the vehicle in question has not been produced
before the Judicial Magistrate till date. His further apprehension
is that even without complying the necessary procedures, the
second respondent is likely to auction the vehicle, which
necessitated the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the order dated 06.06.2019 made in Crl.O.P.No.11945 of 2019,
wherein the learned judge has observed as follows:-
11.The provisions of Section 49A of the Tamil Nadu Forest
Act does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate Court to exercise its power under Section 451
or 457 of Cr.P.C. The confiscation of a vehicle involved
in the commission of an offence under the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act is not only punitive in nature but also a
deterrent. When a vehicle is involved in the commission
of offence under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and there are
prima facie materials to show that the owner of the
vehicle did not have any knowledge or connivance in the
commission of the offence, he can always file an
application for return of vehicle under Section 451 or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
457 of Cr.P.C. But, however the Court while exercising
its powers will have to do it with care and caution and
should provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor
and also must keep in mind the spirit behind Section 49A
of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and its benevolent
object.
12.Even though, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner deals with the case under the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act, the ratio in the said Judgment can be
applied even in a case where confiscation proceedings have
been initiated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
13.In view of the above, the reason given by the Court below
for returning the petition filed by the petitioner is
unsustainable and the same is hereby setaside. The Court
below is directed to consider the petitioner afresh by
keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Division bench
referred supra and after affording an opportunity to the
prosecution. This exercise shall be completed by the Court
below within a period of one month from the date of a
receipt of copy of this order.
4. The learned Government counsel wanted to rely upon
G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 22.10.2019, Home, Prohibition and Excise
(VIII) Department to sustain his contention that the second
respondent can very well auction the vehicle in question. But the
said Government order will come into play after the confiscation is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
done under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. In this
case, there is nothing on record to show the fulfillment of
formalities set out in Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
Act. Therefore, the question of auctioning the vehicle even without
formal confiscation does not arise at all. Also, it does not mean
that the vehicle involved in criminal case should not be produced
before the Jurisdictional Court. In fact, the provisions of Criminal
Procedure Code envisage that the seized vehicle should be
produced before the Jurisdictional Court and the party concerned
can avail the right to claim the vehicle by way of interim or final
custody.
5.Therefore, I direct the respondents to produce the vehicle
in question before the jurisdictional criminal Court without any
further delay. Upon such production, it is open to the petitioner to
apply for return under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Of course, the
authorities are at liberty to take action to confiscate the vehicle as
per law.
6. In the above terms, the Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs.”
4. The petitioner's counsel on instructions gives an undertaking that the
petitioner will not alienate the petition mentioned vehicle till the confiscation
proceedings are over. She also gives a further undertaking that the petitioner
will also produce the vehicle as and when the respondents call for the vehicle
for enquiry and cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
5. I make it clear that it is very much open to the respondents herein to
initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings. The only relief that I am
granting is interim custody of the vehicle. I have not gone into the merits of the
matter.
6.Subject to these conditions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
10.05.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
W.P(MD)No.11430 of 2023
10.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
