Ajith vs The Inspector Of Police

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.09.2026 passed in Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2026 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, thereby allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham in Crl.M.P.No.2951 of 2026, and consequently, dismissing the petition seeking return of the vehicle, which was seized in pursuant to the registration of the FIR in Crime No.76 of 2026 for the offence under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

The petitioner is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.KA-51-MZ-8076. The said vehicle was allegedly used in the commission of the offence punishable under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024. Hence, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.76 of 2026 for the said offence. It is alleged that the accused was found in possession of 46 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) for the purpose of sale without any valid permit. Pursuant to the seizure of the IMFL bottles and the vehicle, the respondent initiated confiscation proceedings and the vehicle was subsequently confiscated by an order dated 21.08.2026.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and has been arrayed as A8 in Crime No.76 of 2026. The vehicle was handed over to the accused only for an emergency purpose and therefore, the petitioner had no knowledge that the vehicle would be used in connection with commission of offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle under a hire purchase arrangement by availing loan from a private financier and is presently liable to repay the said loan. At the time of filing the petition seeking return of the vehicle, no confiscation proceedings were initiated and therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly ordered the return of the vehicle. However, while pending revision, the vehicle was confiscated by order dated 21.08.2026. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Revision Court is liable to be set aside.

A perusal of the records and the submissions made on either side reveal that, though the confiscation proceedings was not initiated at the time of filing the petition seeking return of the vehicle, the vehicle is liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Therefore, the subsequent initiation of the confiscation proceedings cannot be overlooked merely on the ground that such proceedings were not pending at the time of filing the petition before the learned Magistrate. That apart, the crime was registered only in the year 2026 and subsequently, the vehicle was confiscated by order dated 21.08.2026

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the confiscation order dated 21.08.2026 within a period of one week from today. Till then, the respondent is directed not to proceed with the auction proceedings.

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.