Prohibition-law confiscation must conclude within one month, failing which interim vehicle custody follows.

The revision petitioner sought interim custody of a Honda Venue, registration no. TN 38 CV 8507, seized in connection with a Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act case. The petitioner claimed ownership and submitted that leaving the vehicle unused would cause deterioration; the State opposed release because confiscation proceedings had been initiated.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that confiscation proceedings prevented interim release. The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Magistrate’s dismissal of the interim-custody application set aside and obtain interim custody of the vehicle

Whether pending confiscation proceedings under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act precluded a criminal court from ordering interim custody under the BNSS

Sections 497, 498 and 503 of the BNSS address, respectively, custody of property produced before a criminal court pending proceedings, disposal of property at their conclusion, and police-seized property not produced before a criminal court; relief is available to a person entitled to possession.

Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act empowers designated executive authorities to confiscate vehicles used in the commission of an offence, while Section 14(5) provides an appeal against a confiscation order.

In David v. Sakthivel, the Division Bench held that Section 14(4) does not oust the criminal court’s jurisdiction to consider interim custody, but that discretion is not automatic: the court must ascertain the status of confiscation proceedings, hear the prosecution, and give a reasoned order, having due regard to the Act’s purpose.

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, Selvam v. State and R. Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu support avoiding prolonged detention of vehicles and considering their deterioration when deciding custody applications.

The Magistrate dismissed the application solely because confiscation proceedings had been initiated, without properly considering the court’s jurisdiction or the relevant stage of those proceedings.

The High Court, applying David, treated confiscation as relevant to the exercise of discretion, but not as an automatic bar to interim custody. Given the reported pending proceedings, it did not order immediate release; instead, it allowed the authorities a defined period to complete confiscation in accordance with law, while preserving the petitioner’s right to participate and to appeal any completed confiscation.

If confiscation had already been completed, the petitioner could challenge the order under Section 14(5) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

If it had not, the authorities were directed to complete the proceedings within one month, and the petitioner was entitled to participate.

If the proceedings were not completed within that period, the revision would stand allowed, the Magistrate’s dismissal set aside, and interim custody granted subject to a ₹6,00,000 bond with two sureties, filing photographs of the vehicle and its original registration certificate, and furnishing an undertaking to produce the vehicle as directed.