Madras High Court
Arumugam vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 September, 2022
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022
Arumugam ...Petitioner
..vs..
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Brammadesam,
Villupuram District,
Crime No.162 of 2022 ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.4459 of 2022 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam dated 06.09.2022 and direct the
respondents to deliver possession of the vehicle bearing registration
No.TN 56 Q 5893 along with an Atlas Compressors.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4459 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and direct the respondent to deliver the possession of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 56 Q 5893 along with an Atlas Compressors.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Farm Trac Tractor bearing registration No.TN 56 Q 5893 along with an Atlas Compressor, and the said vehicle was seized by the respondent/Police and registered a case in Crime No.162 of 2022 for the offences under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4459 of 2022 under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam seeking return of the vehicle. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
Page No.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was not involved in the alleged offence, but only based on the false information, the respondent/Police seized the vehicle. The petitioner had taken the vehicle solely for excavating the debris that was lying around the mines. The said process did not involve any mining activity, but it is only a cleaning activity. He further submitted that there is no iota of proof to state that the petitioner excavated minerals and transported the same without having any valid licence and hence, he seeks for return of the vehicle.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of the order of this Court dated 27.6.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.790 of 2022.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the alleged vehicle has been used for illegal transportation of mines and the said vehicle was produced before the Page No.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022 Court below and confiscation proceedings have been initiated on 05.08.2022 and hence, he objects for release of the vehicle.
6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.Admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioner for illegal transportation of mines. This Court, time and again, gave a direction that stringent action should be taken in the case of Mines and Minerals and also natural resources. If the interim custody of the vehicle is given to the petitioner, he may commit the same offence or alter and sold the vehicle. It seems that confiscation proceedings have been initiated in the present case. This Court has different view and the decision of this Court dated 27.6.2022 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention is not applicable to the present case. The release of the vehicle during investigation is purely the discretionary power of the Court. Therefore, the learned Judge by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction has dismissed the petition filed Page No.4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022 by the petitioner. This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot conduct roving enquiry at this stage.
8. In view of the same, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
26.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Brammadesam, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.1355 of 2022 26.09.2022 (1/3) Page No.6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis