PANDI Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE person claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 59 0571, Engine No. 483 DL 47 HZZ 757475, Chasis No.418005 HZZ 918968, which was produced as a case property before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti in Crime No.375 of 2011, on the file of Kayathar Police Station, is the petitioner in the present revision case.

(2.) THE above said case in Crime No.375 of 2011 was registered based on the complaint given by the revision petitioner that somebody caused mischief by setting fire to the above said vehicle and also 3 other vehicles. Admittedly vehicles were seized by the police and were produced before the above said Magistrate, who remanded the same as case properties in the said case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.515 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti under Section 351 Cr.P.C. for the return of the said vehicle. The learned Judicial Magistrate chose to dismiss the said petition by the impugned order dated 20.01.2012, stating that if the vehicle was returned to the petitioner, he would get it repaired and the evidence of mischief would disappear. Assailing the said reason as totally unsustainable and contending that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to follow the mandatory directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai .vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(1) CTC 175, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, it was admitted that to show the damage caused to the vehicle, photographs were taken. When such is the case, the assumption of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the valuable articles which are produced as case properties should be kept intact till the completion of the trial is absolutely on an erroneous footing. In this regard, the scope of Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., has been considered and elucidated in a catena of decisions not only by the various High Courts including this High Court, but also by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is unnecessary to cite all those decisions. Suffice to refer to the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai .vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(1) CTC 175,wherein, specific directions regarding vehicles have been issued and the following are such directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court: