Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Denash – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the possessor of the vehicle is the appellant, who is the lawful owner with valid documents. The appellant was engaged in transporting a valuable cargo of iron sheets and is not accused of any involvement in the contraband. The vehicle was lawfully hired and operated by the appellant, and there is no indication that he had knowledge or connivance regarding the seized Ganja. The court has recognized the appellant as the bonafide owner and has ordered the vehicle to be released to him on certain conditions (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave for assailing the judgment dated 20th December, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court [Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.] in Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.1021 of 2024, whereby the prayer made by the appellant for interim custody of his lorry bearing registration no. TN 52 Q 0315 (Ashok Leyland, 14 wheeler) [Hereinafter, being referred to as “the vehicle”], was rejected.
Brief Facts: -
4. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle in question, which was lawfully hired for transporting 29,400 MT of iron sheets from M/s S.S. Steel and Power, Chhattisgarh to Ashok Steels, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu. For this purpose, the vehicle had been assigned to driver Kannan @ Venkatesan (accused No. 1), Deva (accused No. 2), Senthamalivalavan (accused No. 3), and Tamil Selvan (accused No. 4). During the course of transit, on 14th July, 2024, the officers of Police Station Neyveli Township, intercepted and searched the vehicle, whereupon 1.5 kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath the driver Kannan’s (accu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
