Confiscation proceedings cannot bar judicial oversight of seized vehicles: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has mandated a time-bound completion of confiscation proceedings, ruling that the initiation of executive action under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 does not completely oust a Magistrate's jurisdiction to grant interim custody of seized vehicles.

A single-judge bench of Justice B. Murugesan heard a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court's order that had mechanically denied the interim custody of a vehicle solely because confiscation proceedings were underway. The Bench emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised with care and caution, ensuring that statutory provisions do not become a "dead letter" while protecting the property rights of owners.

Key Takeaways

Judicial Oversight Maintained

Magistrates retain the power to grant interim custody under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 even when executive confiscation under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is initiated.

Curbing Property Deterioration

Seized vehicles must not be left to rot in police stations; courts must prioritize their maintenance through conditional interim release to prevent them from becoming useless.

Mandatory Timeframes

Authorities must complete confiscation proceedings within a strict one-month window, failing which the court may automatically grant interim custody to the claimant.

Conditional Release Protocols

Interim custody is not automatic and must be supported by adequate bonds, undertakings, and photographs to ensure the vehicle is produced whenever required by law.

Harmonizing Executive Power and Judicial Discretion

The Madras High Court analyzed the intersection between Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It noted that while the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 provides for executive confiscation, it does not entirely strip the judiciary of its powers to prevent the ruin of property. The Bench observed that "It is therefore clear that keeping a vehicle involved in an offence, either in police stations or in courts, for a long time is not warranted and that an application seeking the interim custody of the vehicle needs to be dealt with judiciously and expeditiously, regardless of the fact that the applicant is the accused in the offence concerned."

Referring to the precedent in David V Sakthivel, Inspector of Police cum Station House Officer, Prohibition Enforcement, Wing, Tindivanam, Villupuram District, the Court noted that a Division Bench had previously clarified that Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Court to exercise powers under the Central enactment, as the Court draws its power from the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Ratio

The initiation of confiscation proceedings by an executive authority under a special local statute does not divest a Magistrate of the jurisdiction to pass orders for the interim custody of a vehicle under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. While the court must exercise this discretion judiciously and with due regard to the special statute's intent, the primary objective is to prevent the deterioration of the property during the pendency of legal proceedings.

Background

The petitioner, a third party and owner of a Honda Venue Car, sought interim custody after the vehicle was seized by the Sivanthipatti Police in connection with a prohibition offence involving her son. The Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, dismissed the application, holding that custody could not be granted because confiscation proceedings had been initiated.

The Madras High Court reviewed several precedents, including Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat ( "(2002) 10 SCC 283": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 113) and R.Manimaran V State of Tamil Nadu ( "2026 INSC 946": 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 1699), which established that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods. The Bench further relied on Selvam V State by Inspector of Police ( "2012 (1) MWN (Cr) 288": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 412) to reiterate that even an accused (or in this case, a related third party) is entitled to seek return of the vehicle. By disposing of the revision with specific timelines for the state, the Madras High Court ensured that administrative delays do not result in the total loss of the vehicle's value.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.RC.(MD)No.1475 of 2026
Case Title: A.Santhanam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vijayendiran
For the Respondent(s): Mrs.V.Moushica, Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 28626