Crl.R.C.No.421 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.RC.No .421 of 2023

E.Lokesh

...

Petitioner

Vs.

State : Inspector of Police,

V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station,

Chennai.

Crime No.182 of 2022

...

Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the Order passed by the learned

Principal Special Judge for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Chennai in

Crl.M.P.No.801 of 2023 dated 16.02.2023.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Veera Narayanan

1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.421 of 2023

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Vinothraja

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

Challenging the Order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge

for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.801 of 2023 dated

16.02.2023 and to return the Apple I Phone XR Mobile, the present revision

has been filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.05.2022, on secret

information, when the respondent police were on patrol duty at V.R.Mall

parking area, they found A2 and A3 in possession of DOB Stamps and

based on their confession statement, the respondent police seized Apple I

Phone XR Mobile belonging to the petitioner and a case in Crime No.182 of

2022 was registered under Sections 8 [c] read with 22[c], 29[1] and 25 of

NDPS Act.

3. The respondent police seized the Apple I Phone XR of the

2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.421 of 2023

petitioner. The petitioner is not an accused in this case and the contraband

recovered from the accused persons is in between quantity. The petitioner is

paying EMI for his mobile. The petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.801

of 2023 before the Trial Court to return Apple I Phone XR to the petitioner.

But it was dismissed, vide order dated 16.02.2023 on the ground that the

petitioner has not mentioned in his petition as to how the phone has gone to

the hands of the accused and based on the objections raised by the

prosecution. Hence, challenging the above said order, the petitioner filed the

present Revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is the owner of the Apple I Phone XR. He further submitted that the

petitioner has to pay EMI for Apple I Phone XR and if the mobile is kept for

unused for a long time, it cannot be used and its value will be diminished

and the petitioner is ready to give appropriate guarantee as well as security

for return of Apple I Phone XR and also he will produce the Apple I Phone

XR, as and when required either before the respondent police or before the

3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.421 of 2023

Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to return the vehicle to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for

the respondent submitted that the petitioner is owner of the Apple I Phone

XR and since the above said I Phone was used by the accused while selling

ganja illegally and hence, he objected to return the Apple I Phone XR to the

petitioner. He further submitted that the Apple I Phone XR is not involved in

any previous case of similar nature.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the respondent

and I have perused the materials on record.

7. A perusal of the records shows that, the respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.182 of 2022 for the offences under

Sections 8 [c] read with 22 [c], 29 [1] and 25 of NDPS Act with regard

to illegal sale of Ganja. Further, it reveals from the records that the

petitioner is the owner of the Apple I Phone XR and it was seized by

4 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.N