Supreme Court of India
Syed Basheer vs The State, Rep. By The Sub – … on 24 January, 2022Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Dinesh Maheshwari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No 126 of 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 9802 of 2021]
Syed Basheer Appellant
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector Respondent
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Singh Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras dated 29 September 2021.
3 The appellant instituted a criminal revision under Sections 397(1) and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for challenging an order of Judicial
Magistrate No 2, Salem dated 23 August 2021 and for the return of a vehicle,
being TATA 407 (Turbo) Tempo bearing Registration No KA-01-C-8853. The
vehicle was seized in connection with Case Crime No 178/2021 registered at
Karuppur police station, the allegation being that the vehicle was used for
the illegal transportation of liquor bottles.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
4 The Single Judge by the impugned order directed the Judicial Magistrate to
order the return of the vehicle to the appellant on the following conditions
which are set out in paragraph 7 of the order:
“7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that
the vehicle is kept in the open space and exposed to natural
calamities, this Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate – II,
Salem, to return the vehicle “TATA 407 (Turbo) TEMPO” bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-C-8853 to the petitioner, on the following
(i) The petitioner shall produce the original RC Book of
the vehicle and other relevant records to prove his
ownership and the learned Magistrate, on perusal of
the RC book and other records, retaining the Xerox
copy of the same, shall return the original documents
to the petitioner with a view to use the vehicle;
(ii) The petitioner shall not alter or alienate the vehicle in
any manner till confiscation proceedings is over;
(iii) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), as non-
refundable deposit through RTGS/NEFT in favour of
the Joint Secretary & Treasurer, Chief Minister’s Public
Relief Fund, Finance (CMPRF) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600
009, Tamil Nadu, India, e-mail: email@example.com or
by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) to Indian
Overseas Bank, Secretariat Branch, Chennai 600 009,
S.B.Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFS Code
IOBA0001172, CMPRF PAN: AAAGC0038F and on such
payment and production of proof, the vehicle shall be
(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he
will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities in
future and also to produce the vehicle as and when
required by the respondent or the Court below as
well as by the District Collector of the District or
authorized officer in that behalf by the Government;
(v) The petitioner shall participate in the confiscation
proceedings, if any initiated, and shall produce the
vehicle, before the confiscation authority. This order
is subjected to the confiscation proceedings.”
5 The appellant is aggrieved by the imposition of condition No (iii) above,
requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs 1 lakh as a non-refundable deposit in
the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund.
6 Notice was issued on 3 January 2022, when the condition imposed in
paragraph 7(iii) of the impugned order was stayed. In pursuance of the
notice, Dr Joseph Aristotle, learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf
of the State of Tamil Nadu.
7 We have heard Mr G Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel in support of the
appellant and Dr Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel for the State.
8 In our considered view, while the High Court was justified in directing the
release of the vehicle and imposing the condition Nos (i), (ii), (iv) and (v),
there was no warrant to impose a requirement of deposit of a non-refundable
amount of Rs 1 lakh in the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund. Such
a direction was not based on any statutory provision and was hence not
9 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the condition No (iii) contained
in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated
29 September 2021.
10 The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of.
11 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
January 24, 2022
ITEM NO.15 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9802/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-09-2021
in CRLRC No.593/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
SYED BASHEER Petitioner(s)
THE STATE, REP. BY THE SUB – INSPECTOR Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.164805/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 24-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR
Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)