MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

 

Latest Legal News