Owner Not Entitled To Return Of Vehicle Involved In Crime Pending Confiscation Proceedings: Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea challenging the order of dismissal of interim custody by the Judicial Magistrate. The vehicle in question was seized for involvement in an offence under Section 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The lower court had observed that it was not desirable to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle to the lawful owner as confiscation proceedings were already initiated and pending.

The petitioner argued that even during pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the vehicle can be returned. He relied on precedents where the Madras High Court itself had ordered the vehicles to be returned to the original owner, after taking note of the fact that confiscation proceedings were initiated.

On the other hand, the Respondent state relied on decision of the court where single judges had ordered that interim custody could not be entrusted pending confiscation proceedings. These orders of the single judges where based on observations of the Division Bench in David v. Shakthivel.

Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:

"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."

Since the law had been clearly laid down by the Apex Court, the court deemed it fit to follow that same and deny entrustment of interim custody.

At the same time, the court also took note of the fact that even though the Trial Court's order was passed in 25.02.2022, the confiscation proceedings were not completed till date. Thus, the court directed the respondent authorities to complete the confiscation proceedings within a period of one month from the receipt of the order failing which the Petitioner would be entitled for return of vehicle on following conditions:

1. The Petitioner shall produce the original RC Book and other relevant documents proving ownership of the vehicle and the Judge, after perusal shall return the original documents after retaining a Xerox copy.

2. The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in any manner till the adjudication was over.

3. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in the future and shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the authorities or by the court below and as well as by the District Collector of the District or authorized officer in that behalf by the Government.

4. The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation proceedings and produce the vehicle before the confiscation authorities.

5. If the petitioner is found to engage in similar offence either using the present vehicle or any other vehicle, the order shall be automatically vacated and the vehicle shall be seized again and produced before concerned authorities.

Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police

Case No: Crl.R.C.No.564 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.P.Yuvaraj

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)