Vignesh vs The State Of Tamilnadu & Anr.

Heard both sides.

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to unlock and unseal the office premises of the petitioner and release the 1,080 Cracker boxes, which was kept in the premises of the petitioner' transport in Global Match building, Vijayalakshmi Colony East, Sivakasi, by considering his representation dated 18.08.2026.

Brief facts for disposal of the writ petition is as that the petitioner is one of the partners of M/s.Karkuvel Transport (Logistics), Sivakasi. He has been running as a daily parcel service with public transport vehicles. They are in the public services for 10 years and above. Their service is to take parcel in Sivakasi area and to deliver within the Tamil Nadu. They also transported printing, crackers, plastic manufacturers and other industrial products to various destination. The customers in Sivakasi used to send crackers in various parts of Tamil Nadu. As per the norms and instructions of the Government, the crackers must be transported through closed containers. Since the petitioner is providing such closed container lorries, the customers have trust over their service and they used to bring their goods (cracker boxes) from their place to the petitioner Logistics, then the petitioner used to send it to different parts of Tamil Nadu. In the given circumstances, on 13.08.2026, the second respondent visited the petitioner's office and while workers were loading the goods, the second respondent stopped the works and registered a criminal case in Crime No.475 of 2026 under Section 9(B) (1) (b) of Explosive Act, against the petitioner as if the petitioner is illegally keeping the cracker boxes in their office. As per the transport Registration Certificate, it has been displayed in the office premises, but, it was not considered by the second respondent and proceeded further action under the criminal law. The petitioner's lorry service is not involved in any offences. Therefore, the registering the case against the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner approached the second respondent with a request to drop further action against his transport service. However, to the petitioner’s great shock, the second respondent locked and sealed the petitioner’s premises after keeping 1,080 boxes of crackers inside the said premises. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before locking the premises. No written notice issued in this regard. The action of the second respondent is illegal and violation of principles of natural justice. Now, the customers are directing the petitioner to move the Court to take their cracker boxes, which was in the custody of the second respondent. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.08.2026 to the respondents. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

When the case was listed for admission on 02.09.2026 and after perusal of the facts found in the affidavit, when it was put to the learned Government Advocate in what circumstances the police locked and sealed the premises of the petitioner. To that aspect, the learned Government Advocate submitted that since the petitioner has no licence to store the cracker boxes, thereby, the police conducted inspection and found 1,080 cracker boxes in the godown of the petitioner, without any valid licence. Therefore, the police registered a case in Crime No.475 of 2026 under Section 9(B) (1)(b) of Explosive Act. In consequence thereof, to recover the 1,080 cracker boxes and having no place to store it in the police station as well as in the Court, they locked in the premises of the petitioner in question.

The question is in what authority the police locked the premises of the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner counsel, when it was put to the learned Government Advocate, the respondent police is not in a position to show any legal provisions to lock the premises of the petitioner. Thereby, the police is directed to reseal and remove the lock of the petitioner's premises immediately, then the matter will be decided after. Otherwise, the petitioner argued to the aspect that the compensation would be paid for illegal locking of the petitioner's premises. Knowing the consequences, since the police committed an error, which is a patent error, the learned Government Advocate submitted that he would advise the police to deseal and unlock the premises and hand over the same to the petitioner immediately. He further submitted that the petitioner would have no further grievance regarding any compensation for the locking and sealing of the premises. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to consider the matter, and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 03.09.2026.

Though the matter was listed on 03.09.2026, it could not be reached and was again listed on 07.09.2026. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 07.09.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on 02.09.2026 itself, the police had removed the lock, desealed the premises, and handed over vacant possession of the subject premises to the petitioner. However, the police taken 1,080 cracker boxes in the custody.

Having the major prayer has been complied by the police, now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 1,080 cracker boxes may be handed over to the petitioner to enable them to transport it to various destination.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that 1,080 boxes of crackers were seized under a mahazar during the spot inspection conducted by the police. Thereafter, the building was sealed, and the said 1,080 boxes of crackers were treated as case property. Therefore, the same cannot be handed over to the petitioner straightaway merely on the intervention of this Court. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may move an appropriate application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. (Section 497 of BNSS) before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and seek appropriate relief.

The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Judicial Magistrate may consider and decide such application on its merits. The 1,080 boxes of crackers, however, were taken into police custody. Form 95 was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, and the Judicial Magistrate assigned P.R. No.175 of 2026 on 02.09.2026. Upon assignment of the P.R. Number, the said 1,080 boxes of crackers became case property in Crime No.475 of 2026. Though the Judicial Magistrate does not have sufficient space to keep the case property, the same has been entrusted to the police for safe custody. Accordingly, the 1,080 boxes of crackers are presently under the interim custody of the police. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot intervene and direct the handing over of the said case property to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his further remedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law.

Even then, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited certain decisions of this Court on the aspect that, when the police sealed the premises of the petitioner, where the petitioner was carrying on transport business and storing crackers for transportation to the respective destinations, such sealing was illegal. In those decisions, this Court directed the police to remove the seal and hand over the premises to the petitioner. It was also directed that the boxes of crackers seized by the police be handed over to the petitioner for interim custody and transported to the respective destinations of the customers. However, the person alleged to have committed the offence has to face the criminal prosecution.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of this Court in Sri Sai Crackers World v. The District Revenue Officer, Virdhunagar District & Ors. in W.P.(MD)No.11661 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024, in which, in a similar circumstances, this Court ordered to remove the seal and hand over the building premises for the petitioner therein. In that decision with regard to the property, it was ordered that it is open to the second respondent therein, who is the Special Thasildar (Matches and Fireworks – Investigation) to videograph and photograph the seized material and the petitioner therein to undertake to keep safe custody of the seized material and make it available as and when the prosecution demands.

Another case of Thangakudalingam v. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar Districtr & Ors. in W.P.(MD)No. 25969 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024, in which, by referring Rules 9 (4) and 52 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, ordered the respondents therein to de-seal the petitioner's transportation office immediately and handover the key of the petitioner's premises to the petitioner immediately.

In Vignesh v. The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District & Anr. in W.P.(MD)No.3208 of 2025 dated 10.02.2025 referring the earlier decision of this Court in Manikandan v. Tahsildar & Anr. in W.P.(MD)No.26100 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023, directed the respondents therein, who are the Government official, to unlock and unseal the premises immediately and allow the petitioner to take the cracker boxes after conducting property inventory and the petitioner can face the criminal prosecution. It was further observed that after receipt of the properties, the petitioner is at liberty to transport them to the customers.

Another decision of this Court in Selvakumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virduhunagar District & Anr. in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.7 of 2026 by an order dated 06.01.2026 also the same view of the earlier decision in Vignesh's case.

Citing the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the lock on the building had been removed and vacant possession of the premises had been handed over to the petitioner on 02.09.2026, the boxes of crackers may also be returned to the petitioner by taking into consideration the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions.

In one of the aforesaid cases, namely, Sri Sai Crackers World (supra), this Court directed the petitioner to keep the seized materials in safe custody and to produce the same as and when required by the prosecution. The said cited cases in Sri Sai Crakers World case is not in favour of the petitioner, which is against the petitioner. In other cases, although there is a direction to hand over the cracker box available in the petitioner’s building, there is no reference in any of those cases as to whether the police or the Executive Magistrate prepared a seizure mahazar or whether it was prepared in connection with the investigation. If so, the seized property ought to have been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, and the said Court would have assigned a property registration number. Thereafter, any person interested in the said property may move an application before the said Magistrate Court seeking interim custody of the property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. (Section 497 of BNSS). Those decisions are distinguishable to the facts of our case.

But, in the present case, the police had seized the property as case property. The F.I.R. was registered on 13.08.2026, and thereafter, a mahazar was prepared. The police also sealed the property belonging to the petitioner. The said mahazar was prepared during the course of the investigation. When the police seized the property under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses, the said property became case property. The subsequent development reveals that the seized property was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivakasi, on 02.09.2026. Form-91, filed by the respondent, is also placed on record. As per Form-91, the case property was assigned in P.R.No.175/2026 on 02.09.2026. Once the seized material, being the case property, was handed over to the Court and the Court assigned the property registration number as P.R.No. 175/2026, the property became subject to the Court custody and orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Government Advocate has subsequently submitted that, as there was no sufficient space to keep the case property within the Court premises, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the police to retain the property as interim custody in a separate building.

In such view of the matter, now the Judicial Magistrate has given the case property in P.R.No.175/2026, straightaway, this Court cannot direct the police to return the seized material and the judicial discipline is to be followed, where the affected party may approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate and take necessary steps under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. (Section 497 of BNSS) and the said Court may decide the same on merit.

Knowing the legal position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to work out the remedy before the Judicial Magistrate for return of property and if it is so, some direction may be given to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, to consider the same.

When the petitioner files an application seeking interim custody of the case property, the same may be disposed of within a short span of time, particularly when the case property consists of perishable. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the prayer in the writ petition is substantially complied by the police, wherein the police has removed the seal and the vacant possession of the premises has been handed over to the petitioner on 02.09.2026, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, to file necessary application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. (Section 497 of BNSS) for return of property. If the petitioner files such application, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, is directed to dispose of the said application within a period of one week and following the other procedure, as per the Rules of Practice, prevailing with regard to the return of property, Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the tentative value of the property seized from the petitioner is Rs.23,94,000/-. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner, being only a transporter, may not be in a position to furnish security by way of a case bond for the said amount. Therefore, the learned counsel requested that the petitioner may be permitted to execute a bond for the said amount. This type of procedure to be decided by the Judicial Magistrate only.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned Magistrate, viz., the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivakasi, for the return of the property. The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivakasi, is directed to dispose of the application within one week from the date of filing of the same.