A.J.PRABHAKARAN vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police,

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 21.04.2026
Pronounced on 01.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
Crl.R.C.No.356 of 2026
A.J.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
EDF-I, Chennai.
(Cr.No.82 of 2025)
2. Cumbum Valley Winery Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
R.Raghu, (M/A-77 Yrs)
Administrative Oddice at
New No.46+, Old No.109,
st
Parsn Paradise, C-Block, 1 Floor,
Door No.3, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. … Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS.,to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 made in
Crl.M.P.No.17206 of 2025 in Cr.No.82 of 2025 passed by the Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai, set-aside the same
and allow this Crl.R.C.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan (for R2)
Crl.R.C.No.401 of 2026
D.Jagannathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
EDF-I, Chennai.
(Cr.No.82 of 2025)
2. M/s.Cumbum Valley Winery Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
New No.46, Parsn Paradise, C-Block,
st
1 Floor, D.No.3, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. … Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS.,to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 made in
Crl.M.P.No.17205 of 2025 in Cr.No.82 of 2025 passed by the Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai, set-aside the same
and allow this Crl.R.C.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Satheesh
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan (for R2)
COMMON ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the
impugned orders dated 29.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.17206 and 17205 of
2026.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
2. The petitioners are the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN07 DL 0777, a Mercedes Benz S350, Silver Colour and Defender 2.0P X
Dynamics SE-Fuji White, bearing Registration No.TN-07-DK-0777. They filed
applications before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking interim custody
of the said vehicles. The first respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of
interim custody.
3. The Court below, after considering the submissions made on either
side, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners had not produced any
document to show payment of Rs.13,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-, which were
the sale consideration for the purchase of the vehicle. Apart from that, since the
vehicles were allegedly purchased from the proceeds of crime, the Court below
held that it would be undesirable to hand over interim custody, and consequently
dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal
Revision Cases have been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently
contend that the Registration Certificates would show that the vehicles were
purchased from one Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited, which is the
accused in Crime No.82 of 2025. The learned counsel would submit that the FIR
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
against the above company came to be registered on 05.05.2025, whereas the
subject vehicles were transferred in the name of the petitioners on 02.05.2025
and 20.02.2025. Apart from that, the learned counsel would also submit that
even assuming that the cars had been purchased by the accused through the
proceeds of crime, the seizure of the vehicles are in contravention of the scheme
of BNSS, since under Section 107 of BNSS, the proper course open to the first
respondent is only to seek attachment of the property in the manner known to
law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the
records would clearly show that the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioners
and that valid insurance are also available. According to the learned counsel, the
findings rendered by the Court below that there is no proof regarding payment
of sale consideration, and that the vehicles are the proceeds of crime, are per se
illegal and contrary to Section 107 of BNSS. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.401 of 2026 relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC
283;
(ii) Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241;
(iii) S.Nithya Vs. State (Crl.R.C.No.1267 of 2016 dated 17.05.2017);
4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
(iv) Vaidhehi Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police (W.P. (MD) Nos.500 to 502
of 2025 dated 17.09.2025)
(v) Ramdoss @ Elamvazhuthi Vs. State (Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2026 dated
20.01.2026); and
(vi) R.Priya Vs. Inspector of Police (Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2026 dated
10.03.2026).
6. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side), and would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate
has rightly found that there was no proof to show payment of sale consideration,
and that only to defeat the FIR filed against Futuristic Global Resource Private
Limited, the present make belief transfer had been effected. Apart from that, it is
the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that since the
vehicles are the proceeds of crime, the question of handing over interim custody
to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revisions.
7. Reiterating the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent would also contend that since the properties are the proceeds
of crime and when there is no proof regarding payment of sale consideration,
5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are perfectly in order. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Revision Cases.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
9. On a perusal of the factual matrix, it is not in dispute that the cars
bearing Registration No.TN07 DL 0777 and TN-07 DK-0777 now stand in the
name of the petitioners. Before the transfer of the vehicles in favour of the
petitioners, the same stood in the name of Futuristic Global Resource Private
Limited. The purchase of the vehicles by the company was in 2024. It is an
admitted fact that an FIR came to be registered against the petitioners on
05.05.2025, whereas the subject vehicles were transferred in the name of the
petitioners on 02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that, even assuming
that the FIR was registered after the sale of the subject vehicles in favour of the
petitioners, the same cannot be a ground to deny interim custody. While
deciding applications for interim custody, this Court is not expected to
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
adjudicate title or ownership, but only to devise a method by which the interest
of the properties are to be protected.
11. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the second
respondent, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), is that the
vehicles had originally been purchased by Futuristic Global Resource Private
Limited only out of the proceeds of the crime qua money cheated from the
defacto complainant. Even assuming the said contention is true, as rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the only option available to
the respondent police is to invoke Section 107 of BNSS to seek attachment of
the properties, and not to directly seize the same.
12. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgments of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1267 of 2016 (N.S.Nithya Vs. State),
W.P.(MD) Nos.500 to 502 of 2025 (Vaidya Devi Vs. Deputy Inspector of
Police), and Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2026 (Ramadas @ Ilamudhi Vs. State) . In the
above judgments, this Court has held in clear terms that, even if any properties
purchased through proceeds of crime, the remedy available to the respondent
police is to invoke Section 107 of BNSS for attachment and other consequential
reliefs, contrarily any seizure becomes illegal.
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
13. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that there was no similar
provision under the old Code prior to BNSS. Before the advent of BNSS, the
police had to resort to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 for
seeking such attachment. However, in view of Section 107 of BNSS, it is now
open to the respondent police to file an application under Section 107(1) of
BNSS, seeking appropriate orders of attachment, forfeiture or other remedies.
14. Therefore, even assuming that the subject vehicles are the proceeds of
crime, seizure of the properties are against the procedure contemplated under
the law. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that the finding
rendered by the learned Magistrate on the point of proceeds of crime is liable to
be rejected.
15. Coming to the other finding with regard to non-production of proof
for payment of sale consideration, it is seen that the Registration Certificates
admittedly stand in the name of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the
second respondent would submit that the transfer of vehicle is not for
consideration, but only to defeat the legitimate rights of the defacto
complainant. No doubt, the complaint against the petitioners had been given on
11.12.2024 and the same came to be registered on 05.05.2025. However, the
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
transfer of the vehicles had already been effected in favour of the petitioner on
02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025. But this court is not giving any finding regarding
the ownership of the vehicles, as this court is only considering the interim
custody of the vehicles.
16. In the above backdrop, now the primordial point to be considered is,
whether the police can seize the vehicles purchased out of the proceeds of
crime. As already discussed, the police have no such power. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the
learned Magistrate are liable to be interfered with. It is made clear that it is
always open to the respondent police to invoke Section 107 of BNSS and seek
attachment of the properties, if the statutory requirements are satisfied.
17. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that, if the vehicles are
allowed to lie idle in the police station, the value of the properties would
deteriorate. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles in the police station for a long period and it is for the
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking proper bond,
guarantee and security for production of the vehicles whenever required.
9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
18. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow these Criminal
Revision Cases. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, and the first
respondent is directed to hand over interim custody of the vehicles to the
petitioners on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.401 of 2026 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of
CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore,
Chennai;
(ii) The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.356 of 2026 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of
CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore,
Chennai;
(iii) The petitioners shall produce the original RC Books along with a
self-attested copies of the same and other relevant records to prove ownership.
The petitioners shall also produce the photographs of the respective vehicles;
(iv) The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of
CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore,
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
Chennai shall verify the RC Books and other records, retain xerox copies
thereof and return the originals to the petitioners;
(v) The petitioners shall not alter, encumber or alienate the vehicles in any
manner;
(vi) The petitioners shall file undertakings that they will produce the
vehicles as and when required by the respondent police or by the Court; and
(vii) The return of the properties shall be subject to the result of
confiscation proceedings, if any, and the proceedings to be initiated, if any under
Section 107 of BNSS.
19. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed as indicated
above.
01.06.2026
kv
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To:
1. The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive
Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in
and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
EDF-I, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )

2026:MHC:1789
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN , J.
kv
Pre-Delivery Common Order in
Crl.R.C.Nos.356 and 401 of 2026
01.06.2026
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/06/2026 03:28:43 pm )