5. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perused the material records of the case. Though there is a cleavage of opinion and two divergent views are being taken in the various judgments, which are referred on either side above, the Supreme Court of India in its judgment inState of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] has held as follows:-
“29.4… The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings.”
6. Therefore, I have no other option than to follow the said view that pending confiscation proceedings, it may not be open for entrustment of interim custody. But, at the same time, it is seen that in this case even the Trial Court’s order was passed on 07.01.2022 and till date, the respondent have not completed the confiscation proceedings. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case on the following terms:-
(i) Since the confiscation proceedings are pending, the petitioner is not entitled for return of the vehicle;
(ii) The respondent is directed to complete the confiscation proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order;
(iii) If the confiscation proceedings are not completed within the date stipulated above, then the petitioner will be entitled for return of the custody of the vehicle on the following conditions:-
(a) The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.11004 of 2021, dated 07.01.2022, is set aside.
(b) The petitioner will be entitled for return of the “MARUTHI VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS Car” bearing Registration No. TN 07 CF 4387 (Engine no. D13A5222735, Chasis No: MA3NFB1SGB100866).
(c) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of the vehicle and other relevant records to prove its ownership and the learned Judge, on perusal of the RC book and other records, retaining the Xerox copy of the same, shall return the original documents to the petitioner with a view to use the vehicle.
(d) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner till adjudication is over.
(e) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that it 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 authorized officer in that behalf by the Government.
(f) The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated and shall produce the vehicle before the confiscation authority. This order is subjected to the confiscation proceedings.
(g) The petitioner shall not indulge in the similar offence either by using the present vehicle or any other vehicle. If the petitioner is found to be involved in any of similar offence in future either by way using the present vehicle or through any other vehicle, this order of returning the present vehicle (“MARUTHI VITARA BREEZA ZDIP BS Car” bearing Registration No. TN 07 CF 4387 (Engine no. D13A5222735, Chasis No: MA3NFB1SGB100866), shall stand automatically vacated, and this vehicle will be again seized by the respondent/police and produce before the Court concerned.
PARTY: R.Manikandan Vs State through The Sub Inspector of Police, H-3 Maraimalainagar Police Station, Chengalpattu. (Crime No. 968 of 2021) – Crl.R.C.No.664 of 2022 – 14.06.2022.
SOURCE: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/659064
URL:
