CRL RC(MD)/1685/2026 of Mani Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Heard and admitted.

02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was taken up for final hearing on 16.10.2026.

03. Claiming an order setting aside the dismissal order dated 06.07.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for the sake of brevity, passed in Crl.MP.No.304/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/A4 under S.497 BNSS for an order granting him ‘interim custody of 439 liquor bottles’ involved in Cr No.247/2026 under S.4(1)(C) and 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, on the file of Kollencode Police Station, the revision petitioner/petitioner/A4 has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under S.438 BNSS.

04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent', unless the context otherwise requires.

05. Sans minute details, the case of the revision petitioner in the trial court is that 439 liquor bottles are said to have involved in Cr No.247/2025 under S.4(1)(C) and 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu prohibition Act on the file of Kollencode Police Station, that in pursuance of such registration of the criminal case, the aforesaid liquor bottles have been seized by the respondent police, that the revision petitioner is the

owner of AKM OASIS Hotel, that the aforesaid liquor bottles have been purchased from TASMAC under valid receipts, that the liquor samples have been sent for forensic examination and that therefore, the interim custody of the aforesaid properties needs to be granted to the revision petitioner being their owner.

06. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the revision respondent in the trial court is that the investigation is still pending, that some bottles were found tampered with, that the report of the forensic examination is awaited and that therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking such interim custody of the properties concerned deserves for dismissal.

07. Neither the revision petitioner nor the revision respondent has chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, before the trial court.

08. On enquiry, the trial court has dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.304/2026 on the finding that the investigation is still pending and that the report of the forensic examination is awaited.

09. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is the owner of AKM OASIS Hotel, that the aforesaid liquor bottles have been purchased from TASMAC under valid receipts, that the dismissal of the claim of interim custody of the properties is not only against law but also against the settled principles on such grant of interim custody of the properties, that the trial court, without due application of its judicial mind, has simply accepted the objections raised by the revision respondent and thereby dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition in mechanical manner, that therefore, the order of the trial court is obviously liable to be interfered with and that therefore, this criminal revision petition, in the interest of justice, needs to be allowed, setting aside the order of the trial court and thereby granting the interim custody of the properties concerned.

11. Learned counsel for the State (Crl Side) appearing for the revision respondent would submit that the investigation is still pending, that the report of the forensic examination has been received and the report is negative, that the order of the trial court, at that juncture, is lawful and perfect and that therefore, this criminal revision petition deserves for dismissal in limine.

12. On careful consideration of the criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner, the related material records and the submissions made on both sides, this court formulates the following point for determination: Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get such order setting aside the dismissal order dated 06.07.2026 of the trial court in Crl MP No.304/2026, an application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/A4 under S.497 BNSS for an order granting him ‘interim custody of 439 liquor bottles’ involved in Cr No.247/2026 under S.4(1)(C) and 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, on the file of Kollencode Police Station, as prayed for?

13. The Point

(1) S.497 BNSS deals inter alia with the custody/disposal of the property, produced before a criminal court, pending investigation, inquiry or trial. S.498 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, produced before a criminal court, at the conclusion of investigation, inquiry or trial. S.503 BNSS deals inter alia with the delivery of the property, not produced before a criminal court.

(2) S.497 BNSS would read as under:

497. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

(1) When any property is produced before any Criminal Court or the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial during any investigation, inquiry or trial, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the investigation, inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court or the Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody; (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of fourteen days from the production of the property referred to in sub-section (1) before it, prepare a statement of such property containing its description in such form and manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

(3) The Court or the Magistrate shall cause to be taken the photograph and if necessary, videograph on mobile phone or any electronic media, of the property referred to in sub-section (1).

(4) The statement prepared under sub-section (2) and the photograph or the videography taken under sub-section (3) shall be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Sanhita.

(5) The Court or the Magistrate shall, within a period of thirty days after the statement has been prepared under sub- section (2) and the photograph or the videography has been taken under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property in the manner specified hereinafter. (italics supplied by this court)

(3) S.498 BNSS (relevant provisions thereof) would read as under:

498. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

(1) When an investigation, inquiry or trial in any criminal case is concluded, the Court or the Magistrate may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.

(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court or the Magistrate, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section

(1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. ………….. …………..

(4) S.503 BNSS (relevant provision thereof) would read as under:

503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. …………

(5) Therefore, it is clear that S.497, S.498 and S.503 BNSS deal with the custody or delivery, as the case may be, of the property involved in a criminal case, and such claim of custody or delivery can be made by a person entitled to the possession thereof.

(6) 439 liquor bottles are said to have involved in this case on hand and accordingly, the aforesaid properties have been seized by the police.

(7) On careful study on the order dated 06.07.2026 of the trial court passed in Crl MP No.304/2026, this court finds that the trial court has dismissed the aforesaid application filed under S.497 BNSS on the ground that the report of the forensic examination is awaited.

(8) It is relevant to note that the forensic examination has been completed, that the report thereof has also been received, that a copy of such report has also been filed in this criminal revision and that the samples sent for forensic examination are found free from methyl alcohol and atropine.

(9) From the available records, the revision petitioner is found to be a licencee for possession of liquor and liquor bottles are found to have been purchased from TASMAC.

(10) From the explanation to S.497 (1) BNSS, it is clear that even liquor bottles which is said to have involved in the commission of an offence are also properties like vehicles.

(11) At this juncture, this court would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283) and the relevant portion thereof would read as under: '17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations

for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.' ………..

19. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing of it after preparing necessary panchnama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may be kept properly after sending it to the chemical analyser, if required. But in no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing.

20. Similarly for the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same.

(12) It is therefore clear that even seized liquors can be disposed of as under S.497 BNSS after preparing necessary panchnama and after taking necessary samples.

(13) Resultantly, this court, considering the nature of the properties being liquor bottles, is inclined to dispose of such properties in such terms as detailed hereunder, and this point is answered, accordingly.

14. Before parting with, as a word of caution, this court would like to make it clear that any observation/finding given by this court in this order shall not influence the decision of the case concerned and that the parties shall not be entitled to make use of any such observation/finding in any way in the case concerned.

15. In the result,

(1) that this criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/A4 is hereby allowed,

(2) that the order dated 06.07.2026 of the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai, in Crl MP No.304/2026 is hereby reversed,

(3) that the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl MP No.304/2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai, is hereby allowed, disposing of the properties, the liquor bottles concerned, on the condition that the revision

petitioner/petitioner/A4 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai,

(4) that the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai, if not complied with as yet, shall comply with such requirements as mandated in S.497 BNSS, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and

(5) that the Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai, is hereby directed to deliver the properties concerned to the revision petitioner/petitioner/A4 only after the compliance by the revision petitioner/petitioner/A4 of the aforesaid condition. 3.0.10.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gns

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate II (FAC), Kuzhithurai.

2. The Inspector Of Police, Kollencode Police Station, Knyakumari District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

B.MURUGESAN, J. gns Order made in CRL.RC.(MD)No.1685 of 2026 30.10.2026