Case Law Details
Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Madras High Court)
The petitioner is the lawful owner of the vehicle, being KIA CARNIVAL car bearing registration No.TN 87 D 7000, which was seized for involvement in an offence under Section 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act in Crime No.1138 of 2021 and was duly produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2022 for interim custody of the vehicle which is dismissed by the order, dated 25.02.2022 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 M.P.Yuvaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
3. Mr. M.P.Yuvaraj, 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 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 David Vs. Shakthive! [(2010(1) L.W. (Cr!.) 129] and therefore, would pray that the Revision be dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
