JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in respect of the order made in C.M.P.No.1086 of 2020 in Cr.No.830 of 2020 order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, at Dharmapuri and set-aside and modify the onerous conditions imposed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate for returning the JCB vehicle to the petitioner.) 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking modification of the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in C.M.P.No.1086 of 2020 in Crime No.830 of 2020, dated 25.08.2020. 2. The gist of the case is that on 27.06.2020, at about 05.00 p.m., the respondent Police received a complaint from one Lakshmi, wife of Kannan (deceased), stating that she is residing at Thinnappatty Village with her children viz., Santhosh Kumar and Surya and his husband Kannan (deceased), who was a lorry driver. On 27.06.2020, at about 02.00 p.m., her husband had taken his motor bike bearing registration number TN 29 AM 3809 to purchase vegetables. After purchasing vegetables while he was returning home, JCB vehicle bearing registration number TN 88 A 0691, driven by one Chandrasekar, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler of her husband Kannan. Due to which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, she lodged a complaint to the respondent Police. The respondent Police on receipt of the complaint, registered an FIR in Crime No.830 of 2020, for offence under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC and seized the said JCB vehicle and produced the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri. The learned Magistrate had taken the JCB vehicle as case property in C.P.No.50 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for return of vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri in C.M.P.No.1086 of 2020. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 28.07.2020 in C.M.P.No.1086 of 2020, ordered to return the vehicle to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. The petitioner’s grievance is that the imposition of condition for returning the vehicle, is onerous, hence he has filed the present revision to set aside the order. 3. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 28.07.2020 in C.M.P.No.1086 of 2020, ordered to return the vehicle to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. The petitioner’s grievance is that the imposition of condition for returning the vehicle, is onerous, hence he has filed the present revision to set aside the order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the driver-cum-owner of the said JCB vehicle bearing registration number TN 88 A 0691, which was seized in Crime No.830 of 2020, for offence under Section 379, 304(A) IPC. The JCB vehicle was involved in Road Transport Accident on 27.06.2020 with a motor bike bearing registration number TN 29 AM 3809. Due to the accident, the rider/Kannan of the motor bike died on the spot, therefore, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.830 of 2020 and seized the vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that the seizure of the vehicle has been intimated to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and the JCB vehicle taken as a case property in C.P.No.50 of 2020. The JCB vehicle of the petitioner is exposed in open space to vagaries of weather and thereby, the value of the vehicle is getting diminished and the vehicle need regular maintenance for up keeping the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition for return of his vehicle before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and placed reliance on the citation in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283”. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, by order dated 25.08.2020 found that the vehicle has not been insured on the date of the accident and considering the objections of the respondent Police and considering the plight of victim and also following the dictum given in “Jai Prakash Versus National Insurance Company Limited reported in CDJ 2010 SC 248”, ordered return of vehicle to the petitioner with the following conditions:- “TAMIL” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Jai Prakash Versus National Insurance Company Limited reported in CDJ 2010 SC 248”had given guidelines that “any vehicle which is involved in an accident and without insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. 5. Thus, the lower Court on a wrong premise ordered deposit of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- as condition No.1, as well by condition No.5, directed the petitioner to execute security for Rs.15,00,000/- with two sureties for a likesum, which is against the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he prayed to set-aside the order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed Additional Typed set, in which, it is seen that the petitioner’s wife Kalaivani lodged a complaint on 14.07.2020 to the respondent Police that on 28.06.2020, after the accident, a group of villagers, caused damage to the tractors, two wheelers parked in the house and also forced the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent Police gave C.S.R.No.175 of 2020 and thereafter, no action was taken. Hence, she sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri on 08.09.2020 and also annexed the photographs of damages caused to the pipe line, CCTV camera, bikes, triller machine and broken the glass pan of the window. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, the petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of JCB vehicle bearing registration number TN 88 A 0691. He further submitted that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in the broad daylight and dashed against the motor bike bearing registration number TN 29 AM 3809 driven by the deceased Kannan. Due to the accident, the deceased Kannan died on the spot and his wife is now widow and with two children Santhosh Kumar and Surya, who are at the tender age. Due to the accident, the deceased Kannan died on the spot and his wife is now widow and with two children Santhosh Kumar and Surya, who are at the tender age. Further, the wife of the deceased Lakshmi is working as coolie and now the entire family is left in lurch without care and concern by anyone. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is having lands, renting out JCB vehicles on hire basis, doing agricultural work by using Tractor. Apart from that, he is also having other incomes. It is admitted fact that the said JCB vehicle was not insured and thereby, the deceased family getting compensation has become precarious, the future of the deceased family consisting of widowed wife and two infant children, has become questionable one. 9. Thus, the lower Court after considering all the attendant circumstances and the financial status of the petitioner and to safeguard the victims, had imposed the above conditions. The cash deposit and security deposit are in commensurate to the act and liability of the petitioner, which need not be interfered with. 10. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is seen that the JCB vehicle bearing registration number TN 88 A 0691 is not insured and the petitioner unable to produce any documents to that effect. The accident took place in the broad daylight. From the FIR, it is seen that the JCB vehicle dashed against the motor bike in a broad daylight and there can be no justification for contributory negligence. Due to the accident, the deceased died on the spot, leaving his wife aged about 35 years and his two children aged about 12 and 10 years are in a precarious situation and their very survival is now a questionable one. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Jai Prakash Versus National Insurance Company Limited reported in CDJ 2010 SC 248” discussed about the victims who will not be able to get compensation in cases of (i) Hit and run vehicles which remains unidentified (ii) Vehicles which do not have any insurance cover (iii) Vehicles with third party insurance. 13. In this case, the vehicle involved in the accident is without insurance cover. In such a case, adequate protection to be given to the deceased family by way of cash deposit or security. 14. 13. In this case, the vehicle involved in the accident is without insurance cover. In such a case, adequate protection to be given to the deceased family by way of cash deposit or security. 14. Following the guidelines issued in the case of Jai Prakash (cited supra), this Court is passing the order that the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 25.11.2020 as cash security (condition No.1) and deleting the condition No.5 that the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.15,00,000/- with two securities for likesum (condition No.5), since both the cash deposit and offering security cannot be insisted. Hence, the condition No.5 imposed by the learned Magistrate, is alone deleted. As regards, the other conditions they shall stand unaltered. 15. In the interest of justice and considering the plight of victims, this Court feels that as per the condition No.1, the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 25.11.2020 and the same is to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the interest is to be paid by the bank monthly in the name of claimants/legal heirs without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The fixed deposit to be given due credit in compensation claims. (i) The fixed deposit shall be for a period of three years, automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court. (ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly. (iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant. (iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. (v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period or on the termination of the proceedings, both before the criminal Court and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. (vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant. (vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. (vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant. (vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. (viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the court. (ix) The claimant can operate the saving bank account from the nearest Nationalised Bank and on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility. (x) The District Legal Aid Services Authority to coordinate and provide necessary aid and help to the victim’s widow and the minors in this regard and provide any other help including finding job to the widow lady and education to the children and their well being. 16. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.