Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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