Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1177 (MAD)

Rajasekar v. Saravanan @ Saran

2015-02-27

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) accepts notice for the second respondent. By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission. 2. The petitioner is the brother of Accused No.4 and according to the prosecution, on 23.09.2014 at about 05.00 a.m., Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Ramanathapuram Detachment, on the basis of prior information, mounted surveillance and conducted the vehicle search on the Tata Manza Indica Aaro Car bearing Registration No.TN-65-L-0068 as well as two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-65-E-5907 and on seeing them, persons came in the two wheeler fled away from the scene of occurrence and A-1 and A-2, who were in the car, were enquired and they searched the car and found the white colour plastic gunny bag containing 90 Kilograms of Ganja. The accused were arrested as well as the vehicles were seized. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking return of the above said car by way of interim custody, stating, among other things, except the fact that A-4 happens to be his own brother, he has nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offences and the vehicle was seized on 23.09.2014 and it is parked in the open place and thereby, opened to vagaries of weather and hence, its material value and utility is coming down day by day and hence, prayed for interim custody. 3. The lower Court, after hearing the prosecution, found that the bother of the petitioner, namely fourth accused is yet to be apprehended and having taken note of the fact that the investigation is pending, the return of the car may affect free and fair investigation and, therefore, dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 22.12.2014 and challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 4. Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even according to the prosecution, the petitioner is the owner of the car and he has no role to play in the commission of the offence and except the fact that he happens to be the brother of A-4, he has nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offence and hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order and return of the car by way of interim custody. 5. 5. Per contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the brother of the petitioner herein, namely A-4 is yet to be apprehended and the investigation is still pending and, therefore, the said aspect has been taken into consideration by the lower Court in right perspective and hence, prays for dismissal of this revision. 6. This Court, after hearing the rival submissions, is of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and the vehicle is to be returned to the petitioner by way of interim custody, for the following reasons. 7. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged commission of the offence and the vehicle belonging to him has been misused/mis-utilized by his own brother, who is arrayed as accused No.4. In the considered opinion of the Court, pendency of the investigation is nothing to do with the return of the car by way of interim custody and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the vehicle is parked in the open space, it is open to vagaries of weather and thereby, it is being in the stage of a disuse and its material value and utility would definitely come down. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.12.2014, made in Cr.M.P.No.1861 of 2014, on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, is set aside, and the return of vehicle sought for by the petitioner is ordered, subject to the following conditions: (i) The 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 Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai; (ii) the petitioner shall produce the original of the registration book pertaining to the said vehicle before the said Court; (iii) the petitioner shall not alienate or further encumber the vehicle; and (iv) the petitioner shall produce the said Vehicle before the Court concerned as and when required. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.