| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 6924
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : CRL. RC.(MD). No. 1067 of 2026 & CRL. MP.(MD). No. 12710 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. GUNASEKARAN |
| Parties : Jeya Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Division, Thoothukudi & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Ka. Raamakrishnan, A K. Lakshmi Parvathi, P. Jeevanantham, Advocates. For the Respondents: C. Christopher, Additional Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 22-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 r/w Section 442 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act
2. Catch Words:
- Confiscation
- Representation
- Due process
- Vehicle seizure
3. Summary:
The petitioner sought a revision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to obtain records and set aside the confiscation order of her vehicle. The vehicle was seized under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act after a liquor possession allegation against her husband. The petitioner argued that she was not given the statutory 14‑day opportunity to make a written representation, as required by the Act. The notice under Section 14(4) was served only to the accused husband, not to the petitioner, and no option to pay the market value was offered. Relying on precedent (Saravanan vs Additional Superintendent of Police), the court found the procedural requirements were not complied with. Consequently, the earlier confiscation order was set aside, and the vehicle was ordered to be returned to the petitioner. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: C-45R. To call for records and to set-aide the order passed in Crl.A.No.144 of 2025 dated 08.04.2026 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi District in Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/Thu.Kaa.Ka/Thalaimaiyidam/Thoodi/2025, dated 12.02.2025 on the file of the first respondent police.)
1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in Crl.A.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in respect of Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/ Thu.Kaa.Ka/ Thalaimaiyidam/ Thoodi/2025; dated 12.02.2025 of the first respondent and to set aside the same.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Jeya viz., the revision petitioner and Sermapandi viz., the accused in the case are the husband and wife and on 26.11.2024, he along with coaccused were alleged to have possessed with 40 number of bottles of liquor each measuring 180 ml in a four wheeler viz., Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R bearing Registration No.TN-69-BT-4396 and thus, on registration of First Information Report, the concerned Additional Superintendent of Police / first respondent herein had passed an order of confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle and no opportunity was given to her to make representation in writing within reasonable time before passing an order to confiscate the said vehicle in Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/Thu.Kaa.Ka/Thalaimaiyidam/Thoodi/2025; dated 12.02.2025.
4. In contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents would raise objection through counter affidavit of the second respondent by stating that the confiscation of the vehicle had taken place by following the procedure established under law and hence, sought to dismiss the petition under order.
5. Both side heard. Records perused. The case of the prosecution is that the husband (Sermapandi) of the petitioner herein along with co-accused were alleged to have possessed 40 number of bottles of liquor in the petition mentioned four wheeler in order to sell the same to public at large to make illegal gain through illegal means.
6. In the scenario, the perusal of the records would disclose that the confiscation proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/ Thu.Kaa.Ka/ Thalaimaiyidam/ Thoodi/2025; dated 12.02.2025 was upheld by the judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukkudi in Crl.A.No.144 of 2025; dated 08.04.2026. The factum of the petitioner being the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle and same being the subject matter of confiscation are not in dispute. Whether the first respondent had followed due process of law in doing so is the question to be determined. It is to reiterate that the petitioner is not an accused and she is claimed to be the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Admittedly, notice to initiate confiscation proceedings dated; 12.02.2025 in Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/ Thu.Kaa.Ka/ Thalaimaiyidam/ Thoodi/2025 was addressed to the petitioner herein without providing 14 days of opportunity to make representation in writing as mandated under Section 14(4)of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that such denial of an opportunity to make a representation is fatal to the case of the prosecution and in support of the same he had relied upon the case law of this Court in Saravanan -vs- The Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Namakkal & Another reported in 2022-1-L.W.(Crl.) 115.
7. The records would further disclose that the notice under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act dated; 07.01.2025 in Na.Ka.No20/ Pa.Mu/ Thu.Kaa.Ka/ Thalaimaiyidam/ Thoodi/2025 was issued only to the accused No.1/Sermapandi and not to the petitioner herein who being the owner of the vehicle. Moreover, there is no proof to show that the petitioner herein was served with the aforesaid notice dated 07.01.2025. In addition to the same, no option was given to the petitioner herein who being the owner of the vehicle to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, an amount not exceeding market rate of such vehicle as mandated under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
8. In view of such non compliance of the mandatory provision and the decision of this Court in the aforesaid cited case law, the judgment dated 08.04.2026 in Crl.A.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi confirming the confiscation proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.20/Pa.Mu/ Thu.Kaa.Ka/ Thalaimaiyidam/ Thoodi/ 2025; dated 12.02.2025 is set aside and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the second respondent is directed to hand over the petition mentioned vehicle to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
| |
