Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 6 February, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
Balamurugan ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep By Inspector of Police,
Andipatti Police Station,
Theni District.
Crime No.830 of 2020. ..Respondent
PRAYER: To call for the records relating to the order passed by the Learned
Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti in Crl.M.P. No. 3399 of 2025 dt.
18.12.2025 set aside the same and allow this revision petition and thus render
justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and
Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for
Respondent.
2. The present Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order
of Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti in Crl.M.P.No.3399 of 2025 dated
18.12.2025, whereby the petition under Section 497 and 503 of BNSS for
interim custody of vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper 2012 Model bearing
Registration No.TN 21 AL 4351, was rejected.
3. Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would
submit that petitioner is owner of the vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper 2012
Model bearing Registration No.TN 21 AL 4351. The said vehicle was seized by
Respondent Police and a case was registered in Crime No.830 of 2020, dated
31.07.2020 for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 21(4)
of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 alleging that
petitioner illegally transported 2 units of gravel sand. Petitioner has filed
Crl.MP.No.3399 of 2025 before Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, to grant
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
interim custody of the said vehicle and the said petition was dismissed by the
Court below by impugned order dated 18.12.2025. Hence, this Criminal
Revision Case has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that petitioner is
the owner of the said vehicle and he would abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this Court. In support thereof, he produced the copy of Registration
Certificate of said vehicle and the same was perused by
Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing
for respondent, who confirmed that Registration Certificate stands in the name
of petitioner.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the said
vehicle may be released subject to conditions and in case, confiscation
proceedings are being initiated, petitioner must co-operate and the same was
agreed to by learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
6. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to provisions of
Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS),
which reads as follows:-
“497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in
certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal
Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as
it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to
speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the
Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order
it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,” property” includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the
Court or which is in its custody,
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been
committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of
any offence.
(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen
days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section
(1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its
description in such form and manner as the State Government may,
by rules, provide.
(3)The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the
photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any
electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).
(4)The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph
or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as
evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
(5)The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days
after the statement has been prepared under sub-section (2) and the
photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3),
order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the
property in the manner specified hereinafter.
503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever
the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a
Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is
not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the
Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the
person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be
ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the
property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the
Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate
may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying
the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person
who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his
claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
vs State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, held as under:-
“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep
such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for
the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the
said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done
pending hearing of application for return of such vehicles.
……..
21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned
Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would
take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451
Cr.P.C. Are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not
kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026than fifteen days to one month. This Object can also be achieved if
there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High
Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard
to such articles are implemented properly.”
8. It may also be relevant to note that mere pendency of confiscation
proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle.1 The same
view was taken by the Allahabad High Court that pendency of confiscation
proceedings shall not operate as bar against the release of vehicle seized under
Section 60 of Excise Act2.
9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the
documents/facts which would prima facie show that Revision Petitioner is the
owner of seized vehicle, this Court takes judicial notice that if vehicle in the
present case is allowed to be kept in custody and in open yard, it will be
exposed to vagaries of weather, resulting in diminishing its value and may in
course of time be reduced to scrap.
1.Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744
2.Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (Alld)
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
10. In view thereof, impugned order dated 18.12.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.3399 of 2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, is set
aside and the seized vehicle viz., Ashok Leyland Tipper 2012 Model bearing
Registration No.TN 21 AL 4351, is directed to be released to petitioner subject
to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction
of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti.
(ii) Vehicle shall be released after preparing a video and still photographs
of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for
identification of the vehicle.
(iii) Petitioner shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till
conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the trial court that he
shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed.
(iv) Petitioner shall give an undertaking before 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
respondent Police and also the trial Court, failing which the respondent/trial
Court is/are at liberty to confiscate the vehicle.
(v) Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in confiscation proceedings, if any,
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
initiated/to be initiated.
(vi) Petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry to be
conducted by the respondent Police.
(vii) Petitioner shall surrender the original R.C. Book before Judicial
Magistrate Court, Andipatti.
(viii) Petition relating to return of R.C. Book for any purpose in the future
may be filed before Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, who may consider the
same on merits, though this order has been passed by the High Court.
11. This Criminal Revision case is disposed of in the above terms.
06.02.2026
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
rgm
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Andipatti
2. The Inspector of Police,
Inspector of Police,
Andipatti Police Station,
Theni District.
Crime No.830 of 2020.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
rgm
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.226 of 2026
06.02.2026
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 08:32:03 pm )
