JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The vehicle in question was alleged to have been used for the offences under Sections 147 and 366 IPC. After investigation and seizure of the vehicle involved in this case from P.W.10 Shanmugam, a chargesheet was filed against accused persons for the said offences, namely, 147 and 366 IPC, alleging that the accused kidnapped one Saritha, P.W.1. During the course of trial, all the important witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the accused were acquitted. P.W.10, who was said to be the owner of the vehicle, also turned hostile, since he did not claim the vehicle in question. Hence, the trial Court ordered confiscation of the vehicle to the State, while acquitting the accused.
2. S.P.Mohan, appellant herein, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, has filed this appeal, challenging the confiscation on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle and, as such, the vehicle should be released to him. According to him, the original owner of the vehicle Shanmugam, P.W.10, sold the vehicle in question to one P.Mani on 27.10.1997 and thereafter, the said vehicle was sold to him on 07.09.1999 and the R.C.Book and other documents have been transferred in his name. He would further state that, during the course of trial, as per the direction of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, the vehicle in question was produced before the said Court on 15.04.2002 and he also filed a petition for return of the same on 16.04.2002 and the said petition was rejected as not maintainable. Therefore, it is stated that he was waiting for the release of the vehicle in his favour while the criminal case was disposed of. However, after the trial was over, by the judgment dated 30.04.2002, the accused were acquitted and the vehicle was confiscated to the State. As against this, this appeal has been filed by the appellant, who claims to be the owner of the vehicle.
3. This appeal is not sustainable for two reasons, namely, (1) the appellant was not a party to the proceedings in the criminal case and, as such, he cannot file this appeal and (2) he did not file any application under Section 452 Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to conduct an enquiry and release the vehicle in his favour, as he is the owner of the vehicle and is entitled to possess. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. However, it is noticed that even though the vehicle was released in favour of one Shanmugam, P.W.10, while the investigation was pending; the vehicle was produced before the Court during the course of trial only by the appellant on 15.04.2002 and on the next day i.e., on 16.04.2002, he filed a petition for return of the vehicle and the same was rejected as not maintainable. Thus, it is clear that even though he did not choose to file a petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle, he claimed for return of the same while the trial was pending, claiming that he was the owner of the vehicle. Under those circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant for the enquiry to be conducted under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
5. Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for this Court to invoke suo motu powers of revision to set aside the order relating to confiscation of the vehicle alone and to direct the trial Court to permit the appellant to file an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, to conduct an enquiry by providing opportunity to all the parties concerned and pass an order in accordance with law.
6. Appeal is ordered accordingly.