J. Sri Raja Gowtham Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1190600
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnJun-10-2016
Case NumberC.R.L.RC(MD) No. 359 of 2016
JudgeThe Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass
AppellantJ. Sri Raja Gowtham
RespondentState rep. by The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District.
Excerpt:
(prayer: criminal revision petition is filed, under section 397 r/w 401 cr.p.c., to call for the records in connection with cr.m.p.no.2384 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of learned judicial magistrate no.6, madurai and set aside the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to release the vehicle namely tata indica mint white colour car bearing registration no.tn 67 ap 9956 to the custody of the petitioner.) 1. the revision petitioner who is a third party aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in crl.m.p.no.2384 of 2016 by the learned judicial magistrate no.vi, madurai has directed this revision. 2. on the occurrence day, just outside the madurai airport a tata indica car tn 67 ap 9956 was intercepted by the police. it found containing 6 bottles of foreign liquors purchased in a liquor shop in colombo. the inmates of the car have alighted from a colombo flight. police registered a case in crime no.132 of 2016. in this connection, the car was seized. 3. petitioner is the owner of the said car. he sought for interim custody of the car. the learned magistrate remarking that the car is liable for confiscation under the provisions of tnp act dismissed his petition. 4. it is stated that there is a proceedings for confiscation of the car by the prohibition officer. but, it has to be done in a manner known to law. when it is found that the car owner knowingly or connived with the accused in using his car in the commission of the offence, then the car is liable for confiscation. but before that principles of natural justice has to be observed. car owner has to be heard. then only confiscation order has to be passed. further such an order is also subject to judicial remedy before the appropriate authority. 5. the car should not be allowed to remain in open place, open to sky. then its material value will go down. this aspect has been overlooked by the learned magistrate. 6. in the circumstances, ordered as under: i. this criminal revision is allowed. ii. the impugned order, dated 27.05.2016, passed in cr.m.p.no.2384 of 2016, by the learned judicial magistrate no.vi, madurai, is set aside. iii. the said magistrate, will give interim custody of tata indica mint white colour car tn 67 ap 9956 to the revision petitioner. iv. the revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said magistrate. v. the car shall be photographed, it shall be signed by the petitioner and it shall be kept in the case records. vi. the revision petitioner shall cause the production of car as and when so ordered by the said magistrate. 6. it is made clear that this entrustment of the vehicle is subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings initiated by the competent authorities. however, it will not disentitle the revision petitioner from taking any appropriate action, if any, adverse order is passed against him in the confiscation proceedings.
Judgment:

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with Cr.M.P.No.2384 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to release the vehicle namely TATA INDICA mint white colour car bearing registration No.TN 67 AP 9956 to the custody of the petitioner.)

1. The revision petitioner who is a third party aggrieved by the dismissal of his property return petition in Crl.M.P.No.2384 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai has directed this revision.

2. On the occurrence day, just outside the Madurai Airport a Tata Indica car TN 67 AP 9956 was intercepted by the police. It found containing 6 bottles of foreign liquors purchased in a liquor shop in Colombo. The inmates of the car have alighted from a Colombo flight. Police registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2016. In this connection, the car was seized.

3. Petitioner is the owner of the said car. He sought for interim custody of the car. The learned Magistrate remarking that the car is liable for confiscation under the provisions of TNP Act dismissed his petition.

4. It is stated that there is a proceedings for confiscation of the car by the Prohibition Officer. But, it has to be done in a manner known to law. When it is found that the car owner knowingly or connived with the accused in using his car in the commission of the offence, then the car is liable for confiscation. But before that principles of natural justice has to be observed. Car owner has to be heard. Then only confiscation order has to be passed. Further such an order is also subject to judicial remedy before the appropriate authority.

5. The car should not be allowed to remain in open place, open to sky. Then its material value will go down. This aspect has been overlooked by the learned Magistrate.

6. In the circumstances, ordered as under:

i. This criminal revision is allowed.

ii. The impugned order, dated 27.05.2016, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2384 of 2016, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, is set aside.

iii. The said Magistrate, will give interim custody of TATA INDICA mint white colour car TN 67 AP 9956 to the revision petitioner.

iv. The revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.

v. The car shall be photographed, it shall be signed by the petitioner and it shall be kept in the case records.

vi. The revision petitioner shall cause the production of car as and when so ordered by the said Magistrate.

6. It is made clear that this entrustment of the vehicle is subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings initiated by the competent authorities. However, it will not disentitle the revision petitioner from taking any appropriate action, if any, adverse order is passed against him in the confiscation proceedings.