1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 27.05.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 (in RC.12(A)/2013-CBI/ACB) passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

2. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 in RC.12(A)/2013-CBI/ACB, at paragraph 8, had observed the following:

“8. In view of the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is still pending with regard to the remaining vehicles and the two charge sheets were filed only relating to two imported vehicles, the request of the petitioner for originals could not be considered at this stage. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to furnish photocopies of all the documents including visiting cards to the petitioner. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.”

and resultantly, allowed the petition in part and directed the Respondent to furnish photocopies of all the documents including visiting cards to the petitioner.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order of the trial Court dated 27.05.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 partly allowing the Miscellaneous Petition and further directing the respondent to furnish photocopies of all the documents including the visiting cards to the petitioner is against law, unjust and had resulted in miscarriage of justice.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the documents which were seized are family photographs, visiting cards and other persona documents of the Petitioner. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the visiting cards are utilised for business purpose and because of the seizure, the Petitioner is very much handicapped and there was no relevance to the seizure of the family photographs in the instant case.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a plea that even if the Respondent/Complainant is in need of any documents for any purpose, it can retain the xerox copies of the same and return the originals to the petitioner. However, in the case on hand, the Respondent/Complainant had retained original documents and the trial Court had committed an error in directing the Respondent to furnish photocopies of the said document instead of directing the Respondent/Complainant to return all the original documents to the Petitioner. Furthermore, because of the order passed by the trial Court in partly allowing the Crl.M.P.No.2364 of 2015 dated 27.05.2015, the grievance of the Petitioner is that he is put to untold hardships, sufferings and mental agony.

6. Finally, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner on earlier occasion filed Crl.M.P.No.2967 of 2014 before the trial Court praying for return of cell phone and Rolex Watch and the Miscellaneous Petition was allowed in part with a condition to return the watch and further a direction was issued to the Respondent/Complainant to complete investigation within two months. Moreover, the Petitioner was given the liberty to file a petition for return of cell phone. After the expiry of the said period, the Petitioner filed another Crl.M.P.No.6153 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court with a direction to the Respondent/Complainant to complete the investigation within two months and liberty was granted to renew the request for return of the property.

7. In response, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant submits that a regular case No. RC MA1 2013-A-0012 was registered by the Respondent on 20.03.2013 against Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai (A-1), Shri Alex Joseph of Kerala (Petitioner A-2), unknown public servants and unknown private individuals under Section 120-B IPC, 420, 467, 468 r/w. Section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)