Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
S. Mohamed Jalaludeen – Petitioner
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No. 211 of 2018, Crime No.25 of 2014
Decided On : 27-11-2018
Criminal Revision Petition - Return of Cash Property - Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - 2003(1) CTC 175, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1440 - The court discussed the application of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, emphasizing the expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451. The court highlighted the need for prompt action in returning seized properties and the importance of recording detailed panchnama, taking photographs, and executing bonds for valuable articles and currency notes. The court also clarified that there may not be a necessity of producing the vehicle before the court and the seizure report may be sufficient.
Fact of the Case:
The Revision Petitioner, accused in a chit fund scheme case, filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for the return of cash property seized from him. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition, stating that the decision can only be made after a full-fledged trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Judicial Magistrate's order was in contravention of the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases. The court emphasized the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the prompt return of seized properties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the proper exercise of powers in returning seized properties, as well as the failure of the learned Judicial Magistrate to apply the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the contravention of the guidelines and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, emphasizing the expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the prompt return of seized properties.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The learned Magistrate was directed to return the cash to the revision petitioner after recording the currency note numbers in the Property Register, and the revision petitioner was to execute a personal bond for the same.
1. The Revision petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri dismissing the petition filed under section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return of cash property of Rs.11,48,000/- in C.M.P.No.1018 of 2017 in Crime No.25 of 2014 dated 28.08.2017.
Brief case of the Revision Petitioner:
2. The Revision Petitioner herein had been arrayed as A1 in the Cr No.25/2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 294 (B), 294(D), 406, 420, 506 (i) of IPC. The parents of the Revision Petitioner had been arrayed as A3 (father) and A5 (mother) A2 is the younger brother of A3, A4 is the employee in the shop. A6 is one Kavitha, who was actually running the Chit scheme, at the shop premises of the revision petitioner.
3. As per the F.I.R., the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint stating that the Revision petitioner and other petitioners had collected “Deepavali Fund” promising to give Gold and other articles to the subscribers chits. The defacto complainant had joined three chits on 23.11.2013 but he did not get the articles, hence the FIR was lodged.
4. The Revision Petitioner A1 was running a textile business namely “Indian Textiles” at No 169-B, GNT Road, Gummdipoondi, since 1999 onwards. A6 Kavitha printed that the chit fund scheme card showing that the chit office is functioning at M/s Indian Textiles Shop, with the blessings of the A1 Revision Petitioner’s parents namely A.Shahul Hameed (A3) and Ayesha Beevi (A5) had used the names of the revision petitioners and his parents, name and business address of the shop and she was regularly collecting the amount and ran away with the collected chit amount and the police are in search of her.
5. The respondent police had taken the revision petitioner A1 in their jeep to M/s.KRM.Kumaragam Chits (P) Ltd. chit fund office, verified the details of the subscription paid by A1 and asked the chit fund office to transfer the due chit amount to the A1 Revision Petitioner‘s bank account and the chit fund company had transferred Rs.10,35,944/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Four only) to the A1 Revision Petitioner SB account bearing No.498198923 with Indian Bank, Gummidipoondi Branch and the Police had asked the A1 petitioner to withdraw Rs.10,36,000/- and it was seized by the respondent police. Similarly the Police had threatened the landlord of the shop premises and got the refund of the rental advance of Rs.50,000/-. Thus the Police had collected Rs.11, 48,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Forty eight thousand only) from A1 Revision Petitioner and a further sum of Rs.6,900/- from the A3’s debit card on 26.07.2014. Altogether a sum of Rs.11,54,900/- was collected and out of which A1 Revision petitioner money is Rs.10,98,000/-.
6. The entire sum of Rs,11,48,000/- was saved much prior to the stating of the Deepavali Chit fund scheme by A6 Kavitha and there is no nexus between the alleged crime and Rs.11,48,000/- recovered from A1 Revision Petitioner. Hence, the Revision Petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr P.C. in C.M.P.No.1018 of 2017 in Crime No.25 of 2014, prayed for return of cash.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused as A-1 in this case for the alleged chit transactions and opposed the case of the Revision Petitioner.
8. I have heard Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suriyaprakash, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record including the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
9. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that whether the revision petitioner is entitled to return for the case property seized from him can be decided only after full-fledged trial and cannot be decided at this stage.
10. Further the learned judicial magistrate observed that the judgment o
AI
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
