SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 3350

M.VENUGOPAL
Raja – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondent:Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER :

The Petitioner has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Case before this Court being aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2015 in Cr.MP.No.6161 of 2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.6161 of 2015, on 21.11.2015, had among other things observed that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 31 AW 2399 (TATA ACE) was unable to be produced before the Court inasmuch as the Additional Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, had stated that the confiscation proceedings in favour of the Government were to be initiated and furthermore, it was observed that the aforesaid four wheeler was not produced and viewed in that perspective, the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C was ultimately dismissed.

3. Assailing the correctness, legality and validity of the dismissal order, passed by the trial court dated 21.11.2015, in Cr.M.P.No.6161 of 2015, the Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision Case before this Court as an aggrieved person mainly contending that of initiating confiscation proceedings is not a bar for the trial court to in







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top