D. Valluvan vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner claims to be the owner of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-67-AF-7272. The said vehicle was seized by the respondent Police in connection with the case in Crime No. 54 of 2014 for the offences allegedly committed under Sections 341, 294(b), 332 and 506(i) I.P.C. Later on, on an application made by the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 5089 of 2014, the trial Court released the vehicle to the petitioner for safe custody by imposing as many as five conditions. One such condition was that the petitioner should deposit the original Registration Certificate of the bus to the custody of the Court. The petitioner complied with the same and accordingly, got the vehicle released. The petitioner has been, thereafter, plying the bus as a stage carriage as per the permit issued by the transport authority. The permit was about to expire. In order to renew the permit, the petitioner was in need of the original Registration Certificate. Therefore, he filed Crl. M.P. No. 2457 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, seeking return of the said Registration Certificate for a temporary period to enable him to renew the Stage Carriage Permit.

Strangely, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the learned Magistrate, on instructions from the respondent, had opposed the same on the ground that entertaining the said miscellaneous petition would amount to reviewing the earlier order made in Crl. M.P. No. 5089 of 2014, which is not permissible in law. Accepting the said objection and by relying on a judgment of this Court in J. Ganeshpandi Vs. M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, reported in 2015 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 414, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this criminal revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records carefully.

In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate was in clear legal error in holding that the petition is not maintainable. I wish to state that the order made in Crl. M.P. No. 5089 of 2014 is not a final order as it is only an order for interim custody of the vehicle. Such interim order is free to be modified at any stage for the reasons to be recorded. Reviewing of final order alone is prohibited in law but not an interim order. As stated above, the learned Judicial Magistrate has relied on the judgment of this Court in J. Ganeshpandi case. On a perusal of the same would go to show that the issue in the said judgment was totally different. In that case, an order returning the property under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was sought to be recalled. The said petition was dismissed holding that the remedy for the petitioner was to challenge the said order. Thus, the learned Magistrate was not right in dismissing the petition by accepting the curious and strange argument advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in this case before the trial Court. I hold that the petition before the lower Court was maintainable.

Turning to the facts of the case, admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is plying the same as a stage carriage bus as per the permit issued by the transport authority. It is common knowledge that without the production of the original Registration Certificate, the transport authority could not renew the permit. Therefore, returning of the registration certificate to the petitioner for a temporary period to enable him to get the Stage Carriage Permit renewed alone would meet the ends of justice. Denial of returning of the said Registration Certificate for a temporary period would disable the petitioner from getting the Stage Carriage Permit renewed which will amount to miscarriage of justice. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. In the result, this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai in Crl. M.P. No. 2457 of 2015 is set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to return the Registration Certificate of the petitioner for a period of fifteen days to enable the petitioner to get the said Stage Carriage Permit renewed and on the expiry of the fifteen days period, the petitioner shall again deposit the original Registration Certificate before the lower Court along with a copy of the renewed Stage Carriage Permit.