Annadurai v. The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapet Police Station, Thirupathur District

Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.03.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.R.C.No.103 of 2024Siva... PetitionerVs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by Inspector of Police,Kottakuppam Police Station,Vanur, Villupuram District.(Cr.No.74/2022).... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District in Cr.M.P.No.512 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the aforesaid learned Judicial Magistrate to return th Bolero Pick Up (LMV) bearing registration No.TN 16 A 4339 seized on 25.02.2022 in Cr.No.74/2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent/Police.Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024For Petitioner: Mr.Swarnam J.RajagopalanFor Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERThe petitioner is the owner of the vehicle viz., Bolero Pickup bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339, has filed a petition under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.512 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The learned Magistrate vide order, dated 22.04.2022 dismissed the said petition, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is hiring his Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No.TN-16-A-4339 and making his earnings. The vehicle is under hypothecation with Shriram Transport Fincorp Limited. The petitioner is renting out his vehicle and from the earnings, he is sustaining himself and also paying the monthly EMI. This being so, the vehicle was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.74 of 2022, for offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 on 25.02.2022. The vehicle is said to have transported pebbles without permit, admittedly the Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024pebbles were collected from the private lands which were available in the surfaces and not by any mining. He further submitted that the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather, further detention would make the vehicle unusable, rusted and it would become a scrap. The petitioner is ready to comply with any condition that this Court may impose while granting return of vehicle. He would further submit that due to detention of vehicle, he is unable to continue his routine work and greatly impaired. Further, the petitioner is also forced to pay monthly EMI, otherwise the vehicle would be seized by the Financier. Hence, he prays for return of property.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police on the other hand submitted that on 25.02.2022, on receipt of secret information, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station along with two Head Constables, near Keezhputhupet Chruch, intercepted the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339 driven by the petitioner's son Sathish/A1. On enquiry, it was found petitioner's son Sathish without any proper permission from the concerned Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024authorities illegally transported pebbles on the instruction of one Periyasamy/A2. On enquiry, it was also found that the vehicle is owned by the petitioner/A3 and he is using the vehicle for collecting the pebbles illegally, stocking the same and selling the same at higher rate. Hence, the vehicle was seized. He further submitted that the if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he would indulge in similar offences. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his objections based on the orders passed by this Court in Rev.Appl.Writ(MD).Nos.80 to 82 of 2019, W.P(MD).No.19936 of 2017, W.P(MD).Nos.7595 and 21485 of 2018, W.P(MD).No.14341 of 2022 and Crl.RC.(MD).No.470 of 2023. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.4.This Court in Crl.O.P.No.646 of 2024 batch dated 29.01.2024 [Annadurai vs. The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapet Police Station, Thirupathur District], considered the objections and referring to the orders of the Single Judge, Division Bench and Full Bench of this Court and the decisions of the Apex Court, yielding to the command of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has held as follows:Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024“30.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the legal position can be summarised as under:(a)The power to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for release/disposal of the property under Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, 1957 lies with the Court and not with any other authority;(b)Section 21(4-A) expressly states that the Court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for the disposal of the seized material is the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Act;(c)The Special Court constituted under Section 30-B of the MMDR Act,1957 is invested with the powers of a Court of Session under Section 30-C. Consequently, the Special Court being a Court of Session cannot directly take cognizance of an offence under the Act in view of the bar contained in Section 193 Cr.P.C and in the light of the law laid down in paragraph 38 of the decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62;(d)As a consequence, a complaint under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 can be filed only before the Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024jurisdictional Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670), and not before the Special Court;(e)Ex-consequenti, the Court for the purposes of Section 21(4-A) is the Court of the Magistrate since it is that Court which is empowered to take cognizance of the offences under Section 21(1). Hence, an application for release of vehicle will lie only before the jurisdictional Magistrate;(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ (Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670 and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed above, do not lay down the correct law.” 5.In view of the above, this Court finds that the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather get rusted and the value of the vehicle get diminished. Hence, this Court is inclined to return the vehicle to the petitioner/A3. The respondent police is directed to return the vehicle, viz., Bolero Pickup bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339 to the petitioner on the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the jurisdictional Tahsildar as non-refundable deposit. After receipt of the above said amount, the same will have to be deposited by the Tahsildar, to the credit of the District Mines and Minerals Foundation Trust, Villupuram as non- refundable deposit;(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The petitioner and the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondent and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle;(iv) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;(v) The petitioner shall take photograph of the vehicle and submit the same along with Compact Disc duly certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;(vi) The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.6.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur in Cr.M.P.No.513 of 2022 is set aside.11.03.2024Index : Yes/NoPage No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/No vv2To1.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Vanur, Villupuram District.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2Crl.R.C.No.103 of 202411.03.2024Page No.10 of 10

Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.03.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.R.C.No.103 of 2024Siva... PetitionerVs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by Inspector of Police,Kottakuppam Police Station,Vanur, Villupuram District.(Cr.No.74/2022).... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District in Cr.M.P.No.512 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the aforesaid learned Judicial Magistrate to return th Bolero Pick Up (LMV) bearing registration No.TN 16 A 4339 seized on 25.02.2022 in Cr.No.74/2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent/Police.Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024For Petitioner: Mr.Swarnam J.RajagopalanFor Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor ORDERThe petitioner is the owner of the vehicle viz., Bolero Pickup bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339, has filed a petition under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.512 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The learned Magistrate vide order, dated 22.04.2022 dismissed the said petition, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is hiring his Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No.TN-16-A-4339 and making his earnings. The vehicle is under hypothecation with Shriram Transport Fincorp Limited. The petitioner is renting out his vehicle and from the earnings, he is sustaining himself and also paying the monthly EMI. This being so, the vehicle was seized by the respondent Police in Crime No.74 of 2022, for offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 on 25.02.2022. The vehicle is said to have transported pebbles without permit, admittedly the Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024pebbles were collected from the private lands which were available in the surfaces and not by any mining. He further submitted that the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather, further detention would make the vehicle unusable, rusted and it would become a scrap. The petitioner is ready to comply with any condition that this Court may impose while granting return of vehicle. He would further submit that due to detention of vehicle, he is unable to continue his routine work and greatly impaired. Further, the petitioner is also forced to pay monthly EMI, otherwise the vehicle would be seized by the Financier. Hence, he prays for return of property.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police on the other hand submitted that on 25.02.2022, on receipt of secret information, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police Station along with two Head Constables, near Keezhputhupet Chruch, intercepted the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339 driven by the petitioner's son Sathish/A1. On enquiry, it was found petitioner's son Sathish without any proper permission from the concerned Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024authorities illegally transported pebbles on the instruction of one Periyasamy/A2. On enquiry, it was also found that the vehicle is owned by the petitioner/A3 and he is using the vehicle for collecting the pebbles illegally, stocking the same and selling the same at higher rate. Hence, the vehicle was seized. He further submitted that the if the vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he would indulge in similar offences. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his objections based on the orders passed by this Court in Rev.Appl.Writ(MD).Nos.80 to 82 of 2019, W.P(MD).No.19936 of 2017, W.P(MD).Nos.7595 and 21485 of 2018, W.P(MD).No.14341 of 2022 and Crl.RC.(MD).No.470 of 2023. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.4.This Court in Crl.O.P.No.646 of 2024 batch dated 29.01.2024 [Annadurai vs. The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapet Police Station, Thirupathur District], considered the objections and referring to the orders of the Single Judge, Division Bench and Full Bench of this Court and the decisions of the Apex Court, yielding to the command of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has held as follows:Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024“30.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the legal position can be summarised as under:(a)The power to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for release/disposal of the property under Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, 1957 lies with the Court and not with any other authority;(b)Section 21(4-A) expressly states that the Court competent to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for the disposal of the seized material is the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Act;(c)The Special Court constituted under Section 30-B of the MMDR Act,1957 is invested with the powers of a Court of Session under Section 30-C. Consequently, the Special Court being a Court of Session cannot directly take cognizance of an offence under the Act in view of the bar contained in Section 193 Cr.P.C and in the light of the law laid down in paragraph 38 of the decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62;(d)As a consequence, a complaint under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 can be filed only before the Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024jurisdictional Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670), and not before the Special Court;(e)Ex-consequenti, the Court for the purposes of Section 21(4-A) is the Court of the Magistrate since it is that Court which is empowered to take cognizance of the offences under Section 21(1). Hence, an application for release of vehicle will lie only before the jurisdictional Magistrate;(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ (Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670 and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed above, do not lay down the correct law.” 5.In view of the above, this Court finds that the vehicle is kept in open space exposing to vagaries of weather get rusted and the value of the vehicle get diminished. Hence, this Court is inclined to return the vehicle to the petitioner/A3. The respondent police is directed to return the vehicle, viz., Bolero Pickup bearing Reg.No.TN-16-A-4339 to the petitioner on the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before the jurisdictional Tahsildar as non-refundable deposit. After receipt of the above said amount, the same will have to be deposited by the Tahsildar, to the credit of the District Mines and Minerals Foundation Trust, Villupuram as non- refundable deposit;(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The petitioner and the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024sureties shall affix their photographs and give the copies of their Aadhaar Card;(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondent/ authority concerned stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegal activities in future and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondent and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial Court is at liberty to confiscate the vehicle;(iv) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned;(v) The petitioner shall take photograph of the vehicle and submit the same along with Compact Disc duly certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;(vi) The petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.6.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur in Cr.M.P.No.513 of 2022 is set aside.11.03.2024Index : Yes/NoPage No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation: Yes/No vv2To1.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Vanur, Villupuram District.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2024M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2Crl.R.C.No.103 of 202411.03.2024Page No.10 of 10