Madras High Court
Alex Pandian vs State Rep. By The on 19 June, 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.238 of 2015 Alex Pandian .. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Prohibition Excise Wing, Madurai District. (Crime No.121/2015) .. Respondent/Complainant PRAYER Criminal revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order, dated 06.05.2015, made in Cr.M.P.No.1217 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi ^For respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Government Advocate (Criminal side) :ORDER
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-37-CH-5126. On 06.02.2015, the respondent found the said vehicle carrying Green Magic Brandy bottles in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Therefore, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2015 under Section 4(1)(a) r/w 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and seized the said vehicle. Seeking return of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam for interim custody. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 06.05.2015, has dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records carefully.
3.The only ground upon which the lower Court has dismissed the petition is that already confiscation proceeding had been initiated under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, as against the vehicle in question. According to the lower Court, since such proceeding was pending, the petition for interim custody of the vehicle is not maintainable. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is not correct. It is too well settled that during the pendency of confiscation proceeding, the vehicle needs to be returned to the person, who is entitled to have. This return will have no impact on the confiscation proceeding, as the confiscation proceeding is an independent proceeding.
4.In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1217 of 2015 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to return the vehicle subject to the confiscation proceedings to the petitioner on the following conditions;
(a)The petitioner shall deposit the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle;
(b)The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum;
(c)The petitioner shall not make any alteration of the vehicle; and
(d)The petitioner shall produce the same before the Court as and when required, until final order is passed in the confiscation proceedings.
5.The authority under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act may proceed with the confiscation proceeding and the petitioner shall obey any order that may be passed in the said proceeding by the authority.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Prohibition Excise Wing, Madurai District.