Gopinath vs State

S. Nagamuthu, J.—Seeking to modify the condition imposed in C.M.P.No. 5095 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Kangeyam, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

The petitioner happens to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN 59 AM 2233. The said vehicle was seized by the respondent in connection with the case in Crime No. 325/2014 and the same was produced before the trial Court. The petitioner filed a petition seeking to return the said vehicle to him. The trial Court passed an order allowing the said petition by imposing certain conditions for return of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

When a specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable, when an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is available to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to answer the said question.

I am of the firm view that since, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam is a final order, it is revisable under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate revision against the order in C.M.P.No. 5095 of 2014, if he so advised. Registry is directed to return the original order in Crl.M.P.No. 5095 of 2014 to the petitioner to enable him to file a revision.