Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two Criminal Revision Cases filed by A.J. Prabhakaran and D. Jagannathan, owners of a Mercedes Benz S350 and a Defender vehicle respectively, challenging the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Cases, Egmore, Chennai, which dismissed their applications for interim custody of the vehicles. The vehicles were seized in connection with Crime No.82 of 2025 registered against Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited for alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioners claimed that they purchased the vehicles from the accused company on 02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025, prior to the registration of the FIR on 05.05.2025. The court below dismissed the applications on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce documents evidencing payment of sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-, and that the vehicles were allegedly purchased from proceeds of crime. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the mere allegation that the vehicles were purchased from proceeds of crime, without any proof, cannot be a ground to deny interim custody. The court noted that the vehicles were transferred before the FIR and that the petitioners had valid registration certificates. The court allowed the revision petitions and directed the release of the vehicles to the petitioners on certain conditions, including furnishing of bank guarantees and undertaking not to alienate the vehicles. The court emphasized that the right to use property pending trial should not be curtailed without sufficient evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicles - Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS - The petitioners sought interim custody of vehicles allegedly purchased from proceeds of crime - The court below dismissed applications citing lack of proof of sale consideration and undesirability of handing over custody - The High Court held that mere allegation of proceeds of crime without proof does not disentitle the owner to interim custody, especially when the vehicles were transferred before the FIR - The court directed release of vehicles on certain conditions to safeguard the interests of justice (Paras 2-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim custody of vehicles seized on the ground that they were purchased from the proceeds of crime, and whether the court below erred in dismissing the applications solely on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce sale consideration documents.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Cases, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the release of the vehicles to the petitioners on conditions including furnishing of bank guarantees and undertaking not to alienate the vehicles.
Law Points
- Interim custody of vehicles seized under criminal investigation
- Section 451 CrPC
- Section 457 CrPC
- BNSS Sections 438 and 442
- right to use property pending trial
- burden of proof on prosecution for proceeds of crime
