IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DINDIGUL

PRESENT: Selvi. M.K. Jamuna, M.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul

Wednesday, the 29th day of July 2020

CV Crl.M.P. No.438/2020

Saraswathi, 58/2020
W/o. Veeraiah .. Petitioner/Owner of the Vehicle
/vs/

1. The District Collector, Dindigul.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.
3. The Assistant Director,
Department of Geology and Mining, Dindigul.
4. The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk
5. State through Inspector of Police, Natham P.S.
Cr. No. 436/2020 .. Respondents/Complainant

This petition came on 22.7.2020 for final hearing before me, Thiru.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate for the
petitioner and Thiru. R.Manoharan, Public Prosecutor for the State appeared and argued through online mode
as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras due to COVID – 19 nationwide lock down and after
heard both sides and perused the records, this Court passed the following
ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s. 457 Cr.P.C. praying orders to grant interim custody
of her Tractor bearing registration No.TN 57 AC 0668.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is owner of
Tractor bearing registration No.TN 57 AC 0668, that the respondent police by alleging that his
vehicle was involved in the illegal transportation of sand has been seized and now the vehicle is in
police custody, that the petitioner is depending on the said vehicle for income and that she
undertakes not to alienate or alter the vehicle, that the petitioner has no previous case and she will
obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Notice issued to the respondents. Notices served. The learned Public Prosecutor filed
objection petition and recorded.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's vehicle Tractor bearing
registration No.TN 57 AC 0668 was involved in the illegal transportation of sand has been seized
and the vehicle is in police custody, that the petitioner has no previous case of similar nature, that
investigation has not been completed, that if interim custody of vehicle ordered, there is more
chance for doing the same offence and there is chance for alienate or encumber or alter the vehicle
and that they are having serious objection to release the vehicle.

Heard both sides. Records perused. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the owner of
the said vehicle and the vehicle has been seized by a respondent Police and is in custody of
respondent police. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the following Apex Court decision. In
the light of the decision reported in
2002 Supp (3) SCR page 39
Sundarbai Ambalal Desai /vs/State of Gujarat
It was held that
"........it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is to
pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as
security for return of said vehicles, if required at any point of time".
In view of the decision laid above and on considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and also the fact that if the vehicle is allowed to be kept idle by exposing the same in rain and shine,
it would damage the vehicle and diminish its value, this Court inclines to release the vehicle in
question on interim custody to the petitioner by imposing stringent conditions.
In the result, this petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to release the
vehicle in question to the petitioner on the strict compliance of the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the
District Mineral Foundation Trust, Dindigul as non-refundable deposit on or before
7.8.2020. After made payment, the petitioner is directed to produce the acknowledgement
receipt and deposit the Original R.C. Book of the vehicle in question before the S.H.O. of
the respondent police.
2. After successful compliance of 1st condition by the petitioner, the S.H.O. of the respondent
police is directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith, who in turn, the S.H.O. is
directed to submit the original R.C. Book and Acknowledgement receipt immediately to the
learned Magistrate's concerned.
3. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to keep the original R.C. Book and
Acknowledgement Receipt with the connected case records safely.
4. Further, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham in
between the period 9.9.2020 to 23.9.2020 and execute her own bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate without fail.
 5. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking that she shall not involve in any offence
in future that may lead to the seizure of the vehicle in question.
6. The petitioner shall not alienate/encumber or alter the vehicle in question till the
proceedings are completed.
7. The petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent.

Pronounced by me, this the 29th day of July 2020.

Sd/- M.K.Jamuna
Principal Sessions Judge,
Dindigul.

➢ Since this order is electronically generated, does not require signature and court seal.
➢ This order is available in E-Courts Official Web Site,
“https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/case status/case number"
Copy to
The Judicial Magistrate, Natham
The Public Prosecutor, Dindigul. To ensure social distancing, they are requested to
The Inspector of Police, Natham PS., download the order from the official web site link.

Thiru. R.Vijayakumar, Advocate

for the petitioner.