ORDER : C.KUMARAPPAN, J. The present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 29.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.17206 and 17205 of 2026. 2. The petitioners are the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN07 DL 0777, a Mercedes Benz S350, Silver Colour and Defender 2.0P X Dynamics SE-Fuji White, bearing Registration No.TN-07-DK-0777. They filed applications before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking interim custody of the said vehicles. The first respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of interim custody. 3. The Court below, after considering the submissions made on either side, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners had not produced any document to show payment of Rs.13,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-, which were the sale consideration for the purchase of the vehicle. Apart from that, since the vehicles were allegedly purchased from the proceeds of crime, the Court below held that it would be undesirable to hand over interim custody, and consequently dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Registration Certificates would show that the vehicles were purchased from one Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited, which is the accused in Crime No.82 of 2025. The learned counsel would submit that the FIR against the above company came to be registered on 05.05.2025, whereas the subject vehicles were transferred in the name of the petitioners on 02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025. Apart from that, the learned counsel would also submit that even assuming that the cars had been purchased by the accused through the proceeds of crime, the seizure of the vehicles are in contravention of the scheme of BNSS, since under Section 107 of BNSS, the proper course open to the first respondent is only to seek attachment of the property in the manner known to law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the records would clearly show that the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioners and that valid insurance are also available. According to the learned counsel, the findings rendered by the Court below that there is no proof regarding payment of sale consideration, and that the vehicles are the proceeds of crime, are per se illegal and contrary to Section 107 of BNSS. According to the learned counsel, the findings rendered by the Court below that there is no proof regarding payment of sale consideration, and that the vehicles are the proceeds of crime, are per se illegal and contrary to Section 107 of BNSS. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.401 of 2026 relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283; (ii) Bishwajit Dey Vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 ; (iii) S.Nithya Vs. State (Crl.R.C.No.1267 of 2016 dated 17.05.2017); (iv) Vaidhehi Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police (W.P. (MD) Nos.500 to 502 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025) (v) Ramdoss @ Elamvazhuthi Vs. State (Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026); and (vi) R.Priya Vs. Inspector of Police (Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026). 6. The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), and would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate has rightly found that there was no proof to show payment of sale consideration, and that only to defeat the FIR filed against Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited, the present make belief transfer had been effected. Apart from that, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that since the vehicles are the proceeds of crime, the question of handing over interim custody to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revisions. 7. Reiterating the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would also contend that since the properties are the proceeds of crime and when there is no proof regarding payment of sale consideration, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are perfectly in order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Revision Cases. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. 9. On a perusal of the factual matrix, it is not in dispute that the cars bearing Registration No.TN07 DL 0777 and TN-07 DK-0777 now stand in the name of the petitioners. Before the transfer of the vehicles in favour of the petitioners, the same stood in the name of Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited. The purchase of the vehicles by the company was in 2024. Before the transfer of the vehicles in favour of the petitioners, the same stood in the name of Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited. The purchase of the vehicles by the company was in 2024. It is an admitted fact that an FIR came to be registered against the petitioners on 05.05.2025, whereas the subject vehicles were transferred in the name of the petitioners on 02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that, even assuming that the FIR was registered after the sale of the subject vehicles in favour of the petitioners, the same cannot be a ground to deny interim custody. While deciding applications for interim custody, this Court is not expected to adjudicate title or ownership, but only to devise a method by which the interest of the properties are to be protected. 11. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the second respondent, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), is that the vehicles had originally been purchased by Futuristic Global Resource Private Limited only out of the proceeds of the crime qua money cheated from the defacto complainant. Even assuming the said contention is true, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the only option available to the respondent police is to invoke Section 107 of BNSS to seek attachment of the properties, and not to directly seize the same. 12. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1267 of 2016 (N.S.Nithya Vs. State), W.P.(MD) Nos.500 to 502 of 2025 (Vaidya Devi Vs. Deputy Inspector of Police), and Crl.R.C.No.99 of 2026 (Ramadas @ Ilamudhi Vs. State) . In the above judgments, this Court has held in clear terms that, even if any properties purchased through proceeds of crime, the remedy available to the respondent police is to invoke Section 107 of BNSS for attachment and other consequential reliefs, contrarily any seizure becomes illegal. 13. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that there was no similar provision under the old Code prior to BNSS. Before the advent of BNSS, the police had to resort to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 for seeking such attachment. 13. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that there was no similar provision under the old Code prior to BNSS. Before the advent of BNSS, the police had to resort to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 for seeking such attachment. However, in view of Section 107 of BNSS, it is now open to the respondent police to file an application under Section 107(1) of BNSS, seeking appropriate orders of attachment, forfeiture or other remedies. 14. Therefore, even assuming that the subject vehicles are the proceeds of crime, seizure of the properties are against the procedure contemplated under the law. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the learned Magistrate on the point of proceeds of crime is liable to be rejected. 15. Coming to the other finding with regard to non-production of proof for payment of sale consideration, it is seen that the Registration Certificates admittedly stand in the name of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the transfer of vehicle is not for consideration, but only to defeat the legitimate rights of the defacto complainant. No doubt, the complaint against the petitioners had been given on 11.12.2024 and the same came to be registered on 05.05.2025. However, the transfer of the vehicles had already been effected in favour of the petitioner on 02.05.2025 and 20.02.2025. But this court is not giving any finding regarding the ownership of the vehicles, as this court is only considering the interim custody of the vehicles. 16. In the above backdrop, now the primordial point to be considered is, whether the police can seize the vehicles purchased out of the proceeds of crime. As already discussed, the police have no such power. In such circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the learned Magistrate are liable to be interfered with. It is made clear that it is always open to the respondent police to invoke Section 107 of BNSS and seek attachment of the properties, if the statutory requirements are satisfied. 17. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that, if the vehicles are allowed to lie idle in the police station, the value of the properties would deteriorate. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. 17. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that, if the vehicles are allowed to lie idle in the police station, the value of the properties would deteriorate. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles in the police station for a long period and it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking proper bond, guarantee and security for production of the vehicles whenever required. 18. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow these Criminal Revision Cases. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, and the first respondent is directed to hand over interim custody of the vehicles to the petitioners on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.401 of 2026 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai; (ii) The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.356 of 2026 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai; (iii) The petitioners shall produce the original RC Books along with a self-attested copies of the same and other relevant records to prove ownership. The petitioners shall also produce the photographs of the respective vehicles; (iv) The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, For Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai shall verify the RC Books and other records, retain xerox copies thereof and return the originals to the petitioners; (v) The petitioners shall not alter, encumber or alienate the vehicles in any manner; (vi) The petitioners shall file undertakings that they will produce the vehicles as and when required by the respondent police or by the Court; and (vii) The return of the properties shall be subject to the result of confiscation proceedings, if any, and the proceedings to be initiated, if any under Section 107 of BNSS. 19. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed as indicated above.