A. Santhanam vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 08.10.2026
DELIVERED ON: 16.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
A.Santhanam ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.290 of 2026 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401
Cr.P.C.,/438 and 442 BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli in
Crl.M.P.No.2972 of 2026 dated 01.08.2026 and to set aside the same by
allowing the above criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayendiran
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)
1/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing on 08.10.2026.
03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated
01.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, hereinafter referred
to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl.MP.
No.2972/2026, an application filed by the revision
petitioner/petitioner/third party under S.497 and S.503 BNSS for an
order granting her interim custody of a vehicle, Honda Venue Car,
bearing registration number TN 38 CV 8507, involved in Cr.No.290/2026
under S.4(1)(A), S.4(1)(i) and S.14(A) TNP Act, on the file of Devarkulam
Police Station, Tirunelveli District, the revision
petitioner/petitioner/third party has filed this Criminal Revision
Petition under S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder
according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision,
2/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context
otherwise requires.
05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the
trial court is that a vehicle, Honda Venue Car, bearing registration
number TN 38 CV 8507, is said to have involved in Cr.No.290/2026
under S.4(1)(A), S.4(1)(i) and S.14(A) TNP Act, on the file of Devarkulam
Police Station, Tirunelveli District, 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.
06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision
respondent in the trial court is that since the confiscation proceedings
have been initiated, the interim custody of the vehicle cannot be granted.
3/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has
chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the trial
court.
08. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal
miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.2972/2026 on the finding that since
the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the interim custody of
the vehicle cannot be granted.
09. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
the revision petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, that the revision
petitioner is not the accused in the case concerned, that the accused is the
son of the revision petitioner, 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
4/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
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.
10. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the
revision respondent would also submit that since the confiscation
proceedings have been initiated, the interim custody of the vehicle
cannot be granted, that therefore, the order of the trial court is lawful
and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition deserves
for dismissal in limine.
11. Heard both sides, and perused all material records.
12. 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 01.08.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate III,
Tirunelveli, passed in Crl MP No.2972/2026, an application filed by the
5/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
revision petitioner/petitioner/third party under S.497 and S.503 BNSS
for an order granting her interim custody of a vehicle, Honda Venue Car,
bearing registration number TN 38 CV 8507, involved in Cr No.290/2026
under S.4(1)(A), S.4(1)(i) and S.14(A) TNP Act, on the file of Devarkulam
Police Station, Tirunelveli District, as prayed for?
13. 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, 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
6/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
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 media, of the property
referred to in sub-section (1).
7/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
(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
8/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
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 the person entitled to the possession thereof,
or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.
…………
9/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
(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 01.04.2026 of the trial court
passed in Crl MP No.2972/2026, this court finds that the trial court has
dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS on the
ground that since the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the
interim custody of the vehicle cannot be granted.
(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:
10/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
'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.'
(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
11/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
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 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.
(12) What stirs the mind of this court is that confiscation
e.f.vz;.61 fhJ.f k.m.gp jpyp.khtl;lk 2026
proceedings in / / / / are reported
to have been initiated against the vehicle concerned. Therefore, now the
12/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
question is whether, during the pendency of such confiscation
proceedings against the vehicle concerned under the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition Act, 1937, (in short, TNP Act), such custody of the vehicle
can be claimed/granted under S.497 and S.503 BNSS?
(13) Of course, S.14(4) TNP Act, which speaks of the confiscation of
vehicles by the competent authorities, would read as under:
14. Confiscation how ordered. –
(1) ………….
(2) ………….
(3) ………….
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-sections (1) to (3), the Collector or other
Prohibition Officer in-charge of the district or any
other officer authorised by the State Government in
that behalf is satisfied that an offence has been
committed against this Act and whether or not a
prosecution is instituted for such offence, he may,
without prejudice to any other punishment to which
the offender is liable under this Act, order
confiscation of any animal, vessel, cart or other
vehicle used in the commission of such offence:
.............
13/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
.............
(14) David V Sakthivel, Inspector of Police cum Station House
Officer, Prohibition Enforcement, Wing, Tindivanam, Villupuram
District ((2010) 1 MLJ (Criminal) 929) is a case where the exercise of S.
451/S.457 CrPC (S.497/S.503 BNSS) vis-à-vis S.14(4) TNP Act has been
elaborately discussed by a Division Bench of this court, and the relevant
excerpts would read as under:
18. Section 14(1) of TNP Act deals with powers of
Court to pass an order of confiscation at the conclusion of
the trial whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal.
Section 14(1) of TNP Act is akin to Section 452 Criminal
Procedure Code. Under Section 14(2) of TNP Act, Court is
empowered to pass an order of confiscation during the
trial of a case for an offence under Tamil Nadu Prohibition
Act. Powers of Court under Section 14(2) of TN P Act is
akin to Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code.
19. Section 14(4) of TNP Act starts with non obstante
clause vesting with power of Executive/District Collector
or other Prohibition Officer in charge of the District or any
other Officer authorised by the State Government, pass
orders of confiscation of vehicle involved in the
commission of offence against Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act
notwithstanding whether prosecution is instituted or not.
14/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
Main question falling for consideration is when
confiscation proceedings are initiated under Section 14(4)
of TNP Act, whether it takes away jurisdiction of the Court
to exercise powers under Central enactment viz., under
Sections 451 or 457 Criminal Procedure Code.
20. We may note that Section 14(4) of TNP Act prior
to substitution by Act 24 of 1990 was struck down as
unconstitutional, since old provision has taken away the
power to pass interim orders till the case is disposed of. In
D. Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others (supra) Division Bench has also observed that right
to approach the Court for getting redressal with regard to
property detained has been prohibited under Section 14(4)
of TNP Act (prior to substitution) and the same was struck
down as ultra vires the Constitution. Now to say that
Court cannot exercise the powers once confiscation
proceedings are initiated under Section 14(4) of TNP Act as
it stands subsequent to the amendment would amount to
status quo ante D. Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Others (supra). Applying the ratio of D.
Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others (supra) in our considered view Section 14(4) of TNP
Act cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Court to
exercise the powers under Sections 451 and 457 Criminal
Procedure Code, since Court draws its power from the
15/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
Central enactment.
……………
22. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate
General, Section 14(4) of the Act does not take away the
jurisdiction of the Court and exercise of power under
Sections 451 or 457 Criminal Procedure Code But
discretion of Court has to be exercised judiciously and
exercised with due care and caution. Where seizure of
vehicle involved in an offence of prohibition reported to
the Magistrate, exercise of discretion and ordering of
interim custody under Sections 451 or457 Criminal
Procedure Code is not automatic. Notwithstanding the
involvement of the vehicle in the commission of
prohibition offence, if there is automatic exercise power by
the Court, Section 14(4) of the Act would become a dead
letter. In our view, order of confiscation of a vehicle
involved in the commission of offence under Section 14(4)
of TNP Act is not only punitive but also deterrent. While
so, when the vehicle is involved in the commission of a
prohibition offence, exercise of discretion by the Court
with care and caution would serve various purposes.
While before passing any order in respect of the vehicle
involved in the commission of prohibition offence, Court
should keep in view the spirit of Section 14(4) of the Act
and the benevolent objects of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
16/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
23. Before proceeding to exercise the jurisdiction
under Sections 451 or 457 Criminal Procedure Code in
respect of the vehicle involved in the commission of
prohibition offence. Court has to ascertain from the
Prosecutor whether any confiscation proceedings has been
initiated by the District Collector/Prohibition Officer or
authorised Officer as contemplated under Section 14(4) of
TNP Act. Only after affording sufficient opportunity,
Court could proceed to exercise its jurisdiction and
keeping in view the spirit of Section 14(4) of TNP Act,
Court to pass appropriate speaking order.
24. It is pertinent to note that as against the order
passed under Section 14(4) of TNP Act, appeal lies before
the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction. For instance let
us assume that order of confiscation has been passed by
the District Collector or other Prohibition Officer incharge
of the District or any other authorised officer. Under
Section 14(5) of TNP Act, any person aggrieved by the
order of confiscation under Section 14(4) of the Act within
one month may appeal to the Court of Sessions having
jurisdiction. In such case, where an order of confiscation
has been passed, if Magistrate has to pass an order for
interim custody, evidently Magistrate would be
transgressing upon the powers of the Executive and
Sessions Judge. To avoid such situation, in dealing with
17/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
the vehicles involved in a prohibition offence, exercise of
powers of the Court under Sections 451 or 457 Criminal
Procedure Code should always be with due care and
caution.
……………
……………
28. We deem it fit to issue the following directions:
(1) Whenever seizure of properties involved in the
commission of offence under Prohibition Act, exercise of
power is not automatic. Court should afford sufficient
opportunity to the prosecution to inform the Court about
the steps taken by the Investigating Agency. Keeping in
view the spirit of Section 14(4) of TNP Act, Court on its
own should ascertain whether any confiscation
proceedings has been initiated and the stage of
confiscation proceedings.
(ii) After affording sufficient opportunity to the
prosecution and only after ascertaining about the steps
taken for initiation of confiscation proceedings, Court
could exercise its discretion under Sections 451 or 457
Criminal Procedure Code Court could judiciously exercise
its discretion with due care and caution keeping in view
the spirit of Section 14(4) of TNP Act. Exercise of discretion
under Sections 451 and 457 Criminal Procedure Code is
only after affording sufficient opportunity to the
18/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
prosecution to get instructions. Subordinate Courts are
directed to insist the Assistant Public Prosecutor/Public
Prosecutor to file written Memo as to the steps taken under
Section 14(4) of TNP Act or otherwise could only on
receipt of written memo, Court could proceed to exercise
its power under Sections 451 or 457 Criminal Procedure
Code
(iii) In case if the Court orders interim custody of
vehicle, the order should be speaking order recording
reasons to order interim custody of the vehicle. In case if
the Court orders interim custody of the vehicle, Court
should obtain necessary undertaking from the owner of
the vehicle to produce the vehicle as and when directed
and send copy of undertaking to the District
Collector/Prohibition Officer in charge of the District or
other authorised Officer in that behalf by the Government
along with copy of the order passed by the Court. We
direct the Registry to place this order before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice for getting approval for being circulated to all
the Subordinate Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(15) Therefore, considering the pendency of the confiscation
proceedings and having regard to the aforesaid decision, this court does
dispose of this criminal revision in such terms as detailed hereunder.
19/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
14. In the result,
(1) that the revision petitioner, if the confiscation proceedings were
completed by the authorities under S.14(4) TNP Act, shall be at liberty to
challenge the order of such confiscation as under S.14(5) TNP Act,
(2) that the revision respondent, if the confiscation proceedings
were not completed by the authorities under S.14(4) TNP Act, shall cause
it to be completed within one month from the date of this order strictly
in accordance with the law/rules therefor,
(3) that the revision petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in
such confiscation proceedings, and
(4) that if the confiscation proceedings are not completed by the
authorities under S.14(4) TNP Act within such one month as directed
earlier, this criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner
shall stand allowed, reversing the order dated 01.08.2026 of the Judicial
Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, in Crl.MP.No.2972/2026, and allowing the
criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.2972/2026 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, on the conditions,
(i) that the revision petitioner shall execute a bond
for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with two sureties for the like
20/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate III,
Tirunelveli,
(ii) that the revision petitioner shall file into the court
of Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, the photographs
showing all the four sides of the vehicle along with the
original registration certificate, and
(iii) that the revision petitioner in view of the prayer
of ‘interim custody’, shall execute an undertaking, in the
form of an affidavit, before the Judicial Magistrate III,
Tirunelveli, to the effect that he shall produce the vehicle,
as it is, before the court as and when directed, and
(iv) that the Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, is
hereby directed to hand over the vehicle concerned to the
revision petitioner only after the compliance by the
revision petitioner of the aforesaid conditions.

16.10.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
21/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Tirunelveli
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
22/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )

CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
16.10.2026
23/ 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:50:46 pm )