Jeyakaran vs The State of Tamilnadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 07.10.2026
DELIVERED ON: 16.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
Jeyakaran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Srirangam Police Station, (L&O),
Trichy City.
In Crime No.12 of 2025.
2.V.Muthumani ... Respondents
(R2 is impleaded as per order of this Court dated 12.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.
(MD)No.10745 of 2025 in Crl.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS to set
aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.2366 of 2025 on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Trichy District,
dated 09.06.2025 and allow the above criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyachidambaram
For R1 : Mr.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Laxmana Raja
1/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02.With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing on 07.10.2026.
03.Vide the order dated 12.08.2025, the 2nd respondent has been
impleaded in this criminal revision.
04.Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated
09.06.2025 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the
sake of brevity, passed in Crl.MP.No.2366/2025, an application filed by
the revision petitioner/ petitioner/accused under S.497 and S.503 BNSS
for an order granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Mahendra Bolero
Pickup, bearing registration number TN 48 K 1345, involved in Cr.No.
12/2025 under S.303(1) BNS and S.21(1) MMDR Act on the file of
Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, the revision
petitioner/petitioner/accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition
under S.438 BNSS.
2/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
05.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder
according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision,
'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context
otherwise requires.
06.Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the
trial court is that a vehicle, Mahendra Bolero Pickup, bearing registration
number TN 48 K 1345 is said to have involved Cr No.12/2025 under S.
303(1) BNS and S.21(1) MMDR Act on the file of Srirangam Police
Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, that in pursuance of such registration of
the criminal case, the aforesaid property has been seized by the
respondent police, that the aforesaid property is now in the custody of
the respondent police but without proper care or maintenance, that the
aforesaid property, if left idle without proper maintenance, would
become useless and ruined and that therefore, the interim custody of the
aforesaid property needs to be granted to the revision petitioner being its
owner.
3/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
07.Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision respondent
in the trial court is that if the property concerned is returned to the
revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar
offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner and that therefore,
this criminal revision seeking such interim custody of the property
concerned deserves for dismissal.
08.Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has
chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the trial
court.
09.On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal
miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.2366/2025 on the finding that the
RC Book of the vehicle stands in the name of some other person, this is a
case registered under MMDR Act, that the investigation is still pending
and that if the property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner,
it would be used for the commission of similar offence or it might be
sold by the revision petitioner.
4/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
10.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the properties is not only
against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of
interim custody of the vehicles, that the trial court, without due
application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections raised
by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal
miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order of
the trial court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that therefore,
this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs to be
allowed, setting aside the order of the trial court and thereby granting
the interim custody of the properties concerned.
11.Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the 1st
revision respondent would submit that this is a case registered under
MMDR Act, that the investigation is still pending, that the petitioner is a
habitual offender having various cases of similar nature, that if the
property concerned is returned to the revision petitioner, it would be
used for the commission of similar offence or it might be sold by the
revision petitioner, that therefore, the order of the trial court is lawful
5/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition deserves
for dismissal in limine.
12.Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd revision respondent, by
filing the affidavit of the 2nd revision respondent, would submit that the
2nd revision respondent has sold the vehicle concerned to the revision
petitioner, handed over the possession thereof to the revision petitioner
and signed the necessary documents for the transfer of ownership.
13.Heard both sides, and perused all material records.
14.On careful consideration of the criminal revision petition filed
by the revision petitioner, counter filed by the revision respondent, the
related material records and the submissions made on both sides, this
court formulates the following points for determination:-
(i)Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get such order
setting aside the dismissal order dated 09.06.2025 of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, in Crl MP
No.2366/2025, an application filed by the revision petitioner/
6/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
petitioner/accused under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an order granting
him interim custody of a vehicle, Mahendra Bolero Pickup, bearing
registration number TN 48 K 1345, involved in Cr No.12/2025 under S.
303(1) BNS and S.21(1) MMDR Act, on the file of Srirangam Police
Station, Tiruchirappalli Town, as prayed for?
15.The Point
(1) S.497 BNSS deals inter alia with the custody of the property,
produced before a criminal court, pending investigation, enquiry or trial.
S.498 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, produced
before a criminal court, at the conclusion of investigation, inquiry or
trial. S.503 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, not
produced before a criminal court.
(2) S.497 BNSS would read as under:
497. Order for custody and disposal of
property pending trial in certain cases.
(1) When any property is produced before any
Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance or commit the case for trial during any
7/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the
Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for
the proper custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the investigation, 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 or the Magistrate 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
8/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
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.
(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.
(3) S.498 BNSS (relevant provisions thereof) would read as under:
498. Order for disposal of property at
conclusion of trial.
(1)When an investigation, inquiry or trial in
any criminal case is concluded, the Court or the
Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for
the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or
delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to
possession thereof or otherwise, of any property
or document produced before it or in its custody,
9/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
or regarding which any offence appears to have
been committed, or which has been used for the
commission of any offence.
(2)An order may be made under sub-section
(1) for the delivery of any property to any person
claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof,
without any condition or on condition that he
executes a bond, with or without securities, to the
satisfaction of the Court or the Magistrate,
engaging to restore such property to the Court if
the order made under sub-section (1) is modified
or set aside on appeal or revision.
…………..
…………..
(4) S.503 BNSS (relevant provision thereof) would read as under:
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 Sanhita, 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
10/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if
such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.
…………
(5) Therefore, it is clear that S.497, S.498 and S.503 BNSS deal with
the custody or delivery, as the case may be, of the property involved in a
criminal case, and such claim of custody or delivery can be made by a
person entitled to the possession thereof.
(6) A vehicle is said to have involved in this case on hand and
accordingly, the aforesaid property has been seized by the police and
produced before the court concerned.
(7) On careful study on the order dated 09.06.2025 of the trial court
passed in Crl MP No.2366/2025, this court finds that the trial court has
dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS on the
ground that the RC Book of the vehicle stands in the name of some other
person, this is a case registered under MMDR Act, that the investigation
is still pending and that if the property concerned is returned to the
11/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
revision petitioner, it would be used for the commission of similar
offence or it might be sold by the revision petitioner.
(8) By filing an affidavit, the 2nd revision respondent would admit
that he has sold the vehicle concerned to the revision petitioner, handed
over the possession thereof to the revision petitioner and signed the
necessary documents for the transfer of ownership.
(9) At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of
Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283) and the relevant portion thereof would read
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 applications for return of such
vehicles.'
12/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
(10) Selvam V State by Inspector of Police (2012 (1) MWN (Cr)
288) is also a case where this court, while dealing with the return of a
vehicle to the claimant/accused has held as under:
'6……………, it would be seen that in directing
return of vehicles, even to Accused persons, in the
manner contemplated in the decisions of the Apex Court
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat, 2003 (1)
CTC 175 and General Insurance Council and others V
State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (6) SCC 768, no
trampling of powers bestowed upon the trial Courts
under Section 452 CrPC is involved. Therefore, it would
be fit and proper to deal with applications seeking return
of vehicles without being clouded with the vision of the
claimant being an Accused.'
(11) Incidentally, this court would like to refer to the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R .Manimaran V State of
Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 946) , where it has been held as under:
'13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in
the custody of the Police or the Court, during the
pendency of the trial, may deteriorate and become
unusable in the long run'.
13/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
(12) It is therefore clear that keeping a vehicle involved in an
offence, either in police stations or in courts, for a long time is not
warranted and that an application seeking the interim custody of the
vehicle needs to be dealt with judiciously and expeditiously, regardless
of the fact that the applicant is the accused in the offence concerned.
(13) No confiscation proceedings are reported to have been
initiated against the vehicle concerned.
(14) Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is
entitled to get the interim custody of the vehicle in such terms as
detailed hereunder, and this point is decided accordingly.
16. In the result,
(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner/ petitioner/accused is hereby allowed,
(2) that the order dated 09.06.2025 of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, in Crl.MP.No.
2366/2025 is hereby reversed,
14/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
(3) that the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.
2366/2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, is hereby allowed but on the
conditions,
(i) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused
shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District,
(ii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused
shall file into the court of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District, the
photographs showing all the four sides of the vehicle along
with the original registration certificate, and
(iii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused,
in view of the prayer of ‘interim custody’, shall execute an
undertaking, in the form of an affidavit, before the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District, to the effect that he shall produce
the vehicle, as it is , before the court as and when directed,
15/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
(4) that the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District, is hereby directed to hand over the vehicle
concerned to the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused only after the
compliance by the revision petitioner/petitioner/accused of the
aforesaid conditions.
16.10.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
16/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Srirangam, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Srirangam Police Station, (L&O),
Trichy City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
17/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.962 of 2025
16.10.2026
18/ 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:47 pm )