DuraiKannu vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Th

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 16.10.2026
Delivered On: 30.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 1649 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011402682026}
DuraiKannu
... Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
The Sub Inspector Of Police,
Thirumayam Police Station,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS to
call for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 19.09.2026 made
in Crl.MP.No.244 of 2026 in Crime No.172 of 2026 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam and set aside the same and
release of the lorry bearing registration No.TN.63-AP-4134.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shajahan
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)
ORDER
Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated
19.09.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl MP
__________
Page 1 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
No.244/2026, an application filed by the revision
petitioner/petitioner/A2 under S.497 BNSS for an order granting him
interim custody of a vehicle, Bharath Benz Tipper, bearing registration
number TN 63 AP 4134, involved in Cr No.172/2026 under S.303(2)
BNS and S.21(1)(2) MMDR Act on the file of Thirumayam Police
Station, the revision petitioner/ petitioner/A2 has filed this Criminal
Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.
02. 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.
03. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the
trial court is that a vehicle, Bharath Benz Tipper, bearing registration
number TN 63 AP 4134, is said to have involved in Cr No.172/2026
under S.303(2) BNS and S.21(1)(2) MMDR Act on the file of
Thirumayam Police Station, 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 interim
custody of the respondent police but without proper care or
__________
Page 2 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
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.
04. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision
respondent in the trial court is that the investigation is still pending,
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
miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the property
concerned deserves for dismissal.
05. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent
has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the
trial court.
06. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal
miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.244/2026 on the finding 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
__________
Page 3 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner has used the
vehicle for transporting gravel soil which is not permitted under the
license.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the property 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 property concerned.
09. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the
revision respondent would submit that the revision petitioner is a
habitual offender having similar cases, that this is a case under MMDR
__________
Page 4 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
Act, 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 and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition
deserves for dismissal in limine .
10. On careful consideration of the criminal revision petition
filed by the revision petitioner, the related material records and the
submissions made on both sides, this court formulates the following
point for determination:
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get such order
setting aside the dismissal order dated 19.09.2026 of the trial
court in Crl MP No.244/2026, an application filed by the
revision petitioner/petitioner/A2 under S.497 BNSS for an order
granting him interim custody of a vehicle, Bharath Benz Tipper,
bearing registration number TN 63 AP 4134, involved in Cr
No.172/2026 under S.303(2) BNS and S.21(1)(2) MMDR Act on
the file of Thirumayam Police Station, as prayed for?
11. The Point
(1) S.497 BNSS deals inter alia with the custody of the property,
produced before a criminal court, pending investigation, inquiry or
trial. S.498 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property,
__________
Page 5 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
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 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.
__________
Page 6 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
(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.
(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, 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
__________
Page 7 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
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 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.
__________
Page 8 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
(7) On careful study on the order dated 19.09.2026 of the trial
court passed in Crl MP No.244/2026, this court finds that the trial court
has dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS on the
ground 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 the revision petitioner
has used the vehicle for transporting gravel soil which is not permitted
under the license.
(8) 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.'
__________
Page 9 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
(9) 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.'
(10) 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.
(11) It is therefore clear that keeping a vehicle involved in an
offence, either in police station or in court, for a long time is not
__________
Page 10 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
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.
(12) No confiscation proceedings are reported to have been
initiated against the vehicle concerned.
(13) 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.
12. In the result,
(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision
petitioner/ petitioner/A2 is hereby allowed,
(2) that the order dated 19.09.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumayam, in Crl MP No.244/2026 is hereby reversed,
(3) that the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP
No.244/2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is
hereby allowed but on the conditions,
(i) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/A2 shall execute a
bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties for the
like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,
__________
Page 11 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
Thirumayam,
(ii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/A2 shall file into the
court of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, the
photographs showing all the four sides of the vehicle along
with the original registration certificate, and
(iii) that the revision petitioner/petitioner/A2, in view of the
prayer of ‘interim custody’, shall execute an undertaking, in
the form of an affidavit, before the Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumayam, to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle,
as it is, before the court as and when directed,
(4) that the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is hereby directed
to hand over the vehicle concerned to the revision
petitioner/petitioner/A2 only after the compliance by the revision
petitioner/petitioner/A2 of the aforesaid conditions.
30.10.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
__________
Page 12 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thirumayam.
2.The Sub Inspector Of Police,
Thirumayam Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 13 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )

CRL RC(MD) No.1649 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1649 of 2026
30.10.2026
__________
Page 14 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:02 am )