Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

Jurisdiction for Release of Seized Vehicle Lies with the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Not Sessions Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, stating that the jurisdiction for the release of a seized vehicle lies with the Jurisdictional Magistrate and not the Sessions Court. This decision was pronounced by the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Vadamalai in the case of Jagan vs. State (Crl.R.C(MD)No.534 of 2023).

Legal Point of the Judgment: The Court's decision focuses on the appropriate jurisdiction for filing an application for the release of a seized vehicle. The Court held that such applications should be made to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, as per the legal framework established by Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act, 1957.

Facts and Issues of the Case: The petitioner, Jagan, sought to set aside an order dated 19.10.2022 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, regarding the return of his tractor and trailer, which were seized by the police in connection with a case of illegal sand transportation. The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner's request, leading to the present revision in the High Court.

Court's Assessment: Justice Vadamalai extensively referred to the precedent set in the case of Ramar vs. The State and various Supreme Court decisions, including Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka. The Court observed that the legal position clearly indicates that an application for the release of a vehicle lies only with the Jurisdictional Magistrate, not the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized the empowered role of the Magistrate under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, thereby aligning with the precedent decisions.

Decision of the Judgment: The High Court set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate for the interim custody of the vehicle. The Court directed the Magistrate to decide on the matter within two months from the date of filing the petition, adhering to the legal provisions.

Date of Decision: March 1, 2024

Jagan vs. State

 

Similar News

  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Income tax returns not a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate under the PC – SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
There could be no question of being permitted to reinstate after acceptance of the resignation.-SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Appeal filed by Adani Gas Ltd seeking authorisation for city gas distribution network in three areas of Ahmedabad District in Gujarat with a cost of Rupees 10 lakhs. SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Forcing to DNA test is violation of violate his personal liberty and right to privacy. – SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Not interfere with the findings of fact recorded after appreciation of evidence merely because the High Court thought that another view would be a better view U/S 100 C.P.C - SC