N.Raman vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Facts

The petitioner, N. Raman, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his Tata Tipper Lorry (Reg. No. TN 25 Q 2232). The vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No. 100/2020, registered for offences under Section 379 of the IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. The respondents stated that no documents were produced at the time of seizure, and the vehicle had not yet been produced before the jurisdictional court as the investigation was ongoing. The petitioner, however, produced a bill from K.R. Crusher Blue Metals, issued the previous day, which included the vehicle's details and a GST number, suggesting the transportation was not illegal and involved rough stones, not river sand.

Held

The Court held that keeping the seized vehicle in the custody of the respondents would serve no purpose. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Others V. State of Gujarat, which emphasizes the need for prompt orders regarding seized vehicles, the Court directed the release of the vehicle. The reasoning was that the petitioner had presented a bill with a GST number, prima facie indicating that the transportation was not illegal. The petitioner's counsel provided an undertaking to ensure the vehicle's non-involvement in future offences, its production when required, and that it would not be alienated. The Court imposed conditions for release: the petitioner must not alienate or encumber the vehicle, must produce ownership documents, and must cooperate with any future inquiries by producing the vehicle. The Court noted that if the undertaking was breached, the benefit of the order would be recalled, and the vehicle would be taken back into custody pending further orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized vehicle, a Tata Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 25 Q 2232, should be released to the petitioner, N. Raman, considering the documents produced and the stage of the investigation? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the transportation was not illegal, as evidenced by a bill issued by K.R. Crusher Blue Metals, which included a GST number and indicated that rough stones, not river sand, were being transported. The petitioner's counsel also provided an undertaking that the vehicle would not be involved in similar offences, would be produced when required, and would not be alienated. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that no documents were produced at the time of seizure, and the criminal case was still under investigation, with the vehicle yet to be produced before the court. They did not explicitly argue against the release based on the newly presented bill.