This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2017 dated 13.10.2017 confirming the dismissal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in C.M.P.No.5657 of 2017 dated 26.09.2017.
2.The petitioner states that he is the owner of the vehicle, (Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry) bearing Registration No.TN-38-AT-6883. It appears that the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.356 of 2017 for the alleged offence under
Section 379 IPC r/w
Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in connection with the occurrence taken place on 31.08.2017. Though the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused, it is further stated that the vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of three units of sand in two Tipper lorries including the petitioner's vehicle as referred to above. Since the lorry of the petitioner was seized by the respondent police, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5657 of 2017 under
Section 451 Cr.P.C., for return of vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Karur. But the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Karur, by an order dated 26.09.2017. As against the order of dismissal for return of vehicle, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2017 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 13.10.2017. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2017, the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed.
3.In the order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, has stated that the vehicle is likely to be confiscated once again for committing the same offence and that therefore, in view of the objection of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the revision is liable to be dismissed by making an observation that Truck owners are in the habit of defeating the Court orders and the orders of State Government by indulging in commission of illegal sand mining.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relaid upon the Judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sakthidevi Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Thittachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District reported in (2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 634 wherein, certain guidelines are framed for interim custody of vehicles in similar cases following the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. Paragraphs 9 to 11 in the Judgment are extracted below the convenience.
9.It is seen that the said Judgment of this Court is also circulated to the Subordinate Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu. The above guidelines stipulated by the Division Bench would make it crystal clear that the Courts below shall pass any order under
Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C., by exercising its power and discretion judiciously. It is also made clear in the said guidelines that the spirit of Section 14(4) of TNP Act should also be taken into consideration while passing an order granting the relief of interim custody of vehicle. Apart from such guidelines, it is also stipulated that the owner of the vehicle shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the District Collector/Prohibition Officer in-charge of the District or authorized officer in that behalf by the Government. Therefore, is very clear that even the Division Bench has not given a finding to the effect that the pending confiscation proceedings is a bar for granting the relief of interim custody of the vehicle. It is also relevant to state that the Magistrate Court is not prevented from making any order of interim custody as per the provision under
Section 451 Cr.P.C., merely because the vehicle was not produced before the said Court. As it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra that the production of the vehicle is not necessary for passing the order of interim custody of the vehicle.
10.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam made in Crl.M.P.No.472 of 2011 dated 08.02.2011 and the criminal revision is allowed.
11.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam is directed to return the vehicle, viz., Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-51-P-2826 on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book and other relevant records to prove his ownership and the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the RC book and other records, retaining the Xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to the revision petitioner with a view to use the vehicle;
(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in any manner till adjudication is over.
(iii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam;
(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the Court below and as well as by the District Collector of the District or authorised officer in that behalf by the Government.
5.As a result, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, in Crl.R.C.No.42 of 2017 dated 13.10.2017 is set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur is directed to return the vehicle (Ashok Leyland Tipper Lorry) of the petitioner bearing Reg.No.TN38AT 6883 on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book and other relevant records to prove his ownership and the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the RC book and other records, retaining the Xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to the revision petitioner with a view to use the vehicle;
(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in any manner till adjudication is over.
(iii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur;
(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in future and also to produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondent and by the Court below and as well as by the District Collector of the District or authorised officer in that behalf by the Government.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Karur.
3.The Principal Sessions Court, Karur.
.