Manimaran vs The State rep by Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012454412026}
Manimaran, S/o Palaniyandi,
D.No.24, Srinivasa Nagar,
Ranganathapuram, Pothanur Main Road,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State rep by Inspector of Police
P.E.W. City Police Station, Coimbatore District.
Crime No. 122 of 2026.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated
15.09.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2026, by the Additional District
Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act Cases, Coimbatore and to
grant interim custody of Four-wheeler namely Maruthi Suzhuki Swift Dezire
Car bearing Registration No.TN-43-M-0468 to the Revision Petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Dinesh, GA (Criminal Side)
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated 15.09.2026
passed in Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2026, by the Additional District
Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act Cases, Coimbatore and to
grant interim custody of Four-wheeler namely Maruthi Suzhuki Swift Dezire
Car bearing Registration No.TN-43-M-0468 to the Revision Petitioner.
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle, Maruthi
Suzhuki Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No.TN-43-M-0468, which
was seized by the Respondent Police on 30.06.2026 in Cr.No.122 of 2026,
under Section 8(c), read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, the Revision
Petitioner had filed the above petition, seeking interim custody of the said
Vehicle, before the Trial Court. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had
dismissed the said petition, refusing to release the said Vehicle. Hence, this
Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the
relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard M.N.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) for the Respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision
Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and that when the ownership
of the vehicle in question is not in dispute, the impugned order of the court
below, refusing to return the vehicle, is not sustainable. Thus, the learned
counsel seeks to quash the impugned order and to release the vehicle in
question.
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that from the
date of seizure, the vehicle in question is kept in the custody of the Trial
Court in the open yard and with the passage of time, ultimately it will
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
become junk and after sometime, it is not useful for any purpose. The learned
counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of
Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 .
6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further drawn the
attention of this Court, regarding the provisions of Sections 497 and 503 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is quoted as
under:-
" 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
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
(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.
(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 learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
Revision Petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions, which the
Court will impose, while releasing the vehicle in question. Indisputably, the
Revision Petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle in question and
therefore, the vehicle in question be released in his favour and the impugned
order be quashed by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent submits
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
that the vehicle in question was involved in the offences under Section 8(c),
read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and hence, the vehicle in question was correctly seized
by the Respondent Police. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order and hence, no
interference by this Court is required.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the relevant legal provisions and the judgements
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai (supra) and the judgement passed by the High Court in various cases.
10.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, AIR
2003 SC 638 (supra) in para 17 and 21 has been pleased to 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 more
than 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."
11. In Nand Vs. State of U.P., 1996 Law Suit (All) 423, the Allahabad High
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
Court has observed that pendency of the confiscation proceedings under
Section 72 of the U. P. Excise Act is not a bar for release of the vehicle which
is required for the trial under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. It has been
clearly observed by that Court in para 7, which is being produced as under:-
"I think it is not proper to allow the truck to be damaged by
remaining stationed at police station. Admittedly, the ownership of
the truck is not disputed. The State of Uttar Pradesh does not claim
its ownership. Therefore, I think it will be proper and in the larger
interest of public as well as the revisionist that the revisionist gives a
Bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs before the C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat and
files a bond that he shall be producing the truck as and when needed
by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, and
he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the truck."
12. The Allahabad High Court further has held in the case of Jai Prakash Vs.
State of U.P., 1992 AWC 1744 that mere pendency of confiscation
proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle. In
Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1986 U.P. Cri. Ruling 50 (Alld) , 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 Act.
13.In the opinion of this Court, the power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is not properly and widely used by
the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order. The power conferred
under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
be exercised by the trial court with judicious mind and without any
unnecessary delay. So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
article in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not fulfil any
purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of
the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the
remaining period for which the property is being made as it is not in dispute
that the Revision Petitioner is the owner of the seized Vehicle.
14.Further, in the opinion of this Court, the procedure as contemplated under
Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) be also
followed promptly, so that the concerned Court may take prompt decision for
disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of
the said property, keeping the said property in the custody and keeping the
same in the custody of the Trial Court in the open yard will not solve any
purpose and that gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said
property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural
justice.
15.As per the legal propositions mentioned above and keeping in view the facts
that indisputably the Revision Petitioner is the registered owner of the seized
vehicle and that the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute as neither the
State or any other person has claimed their ownership over the vehicle, no
useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle stationed at the Trial
Court in the open yard for a long period, allowing it to be damaged with the
passage of time.
16.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court referred
to above, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, it
requires interference by this court.
17.Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
impugned order, dated 15.09.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2143 of 2026, by
the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act
Cases, Coimbatore, is set aside and reversed .
18.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act
Cases, Coimbatore, is directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith in
favour of the Revision Petitioner, on conditions that the Revision Petitioner
shall give a bank guarantee of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) before the said Court and file a bond that he shall be producing the
vehicle in question as and when needed by the concerned court and he shall
not make any changes nor any variation in the vehicle in question.
19.There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Crl.MP is closed.
Let the copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for its compliance
and information by the Registry of this Court within one week from today.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
SRCM
To
1. Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act Cases,
Coimbatore
2. Inspector of Police P.E.W. City Police Station, Coimbatore District.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )

CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 2399 of 2026
15-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 01:08:03 pm )