Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VADAMALAI, J
G.Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichy District. – Respondent
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.994 and 995 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Vetrivel
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side)
The court differentiated between the return of seized property based on ownership and materiality to ongoing prosecutions.
Headnote:The petitioners seek interim custody of seized cell phones and cash, stating they own the phones and the cash is needed for family needs. The court determines that while the phones can be returned, the cash should remain seized as material evidence in ongoing prosecution (para 7). The applicable law includes sections from the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act and IPC (para 2). The court highlights that phones are linked to the illegal activity, substantiating the refusal of cash return (para 6). Final ruling allows return of phones under conditions but dismisses the cash claim (para 8).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek interim custody of seized property. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments about ownership and materiality of seized items. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes that phones can be returned but cash cannot. (Para 7) |
| 4. final ruling allows phone return; dismisses cash claim. (Para 8 , 9) |
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the order, dated
30.07.2024 passed in respective Crl.M.P.No.930 and 929 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thottiyam and to set aside the same and to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate to return the seized cell phones and cash to the respective revision petitioners on interim custody.
2.The brief facts of the case:
On 14.01.2024 at about 07.00 a.m., the respondent police while on patrol duty at Thottiyam Mudakku Salai in Namakkal-Trichy Main road, inspected the Car bearing registration number TN 37 CM 8370 driven by the accused Gokulraj accompanied with another accused Mytheeswaran.
On enquiry, accused Gokulraj confessed that he purchased tobacco from Bangaluru through phone call and also sold them on the way. The accused were found illegal possession of 30 kg HANS CHAAP TOBACCO and sale amount of CHAAP TOBACCO Rs.86,850/-. The above properties and two cell phones POCO F4 and One Plus were seized and they were arrested in the presence of witnesses. A case was registered in Crime No. 16 of 2024 U/s.6 and 24(1) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and U/s. 328 of IPC and they were remanded before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. The petitioner/Manikandan filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.930 of 2024 for return of cell phones POCO F4 5G & One Plus Nord CE 2 5G and the petitioner/Gokulraj filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.929 of 2024 for return of cash Rs.86,440/- before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thottiyam. Both the petitions were dismissed vide separate order, dated 30.07.2024.
3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners have come forward with these present Criminal Revision Cases.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the records in these Criminal Revision Cases.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has submitted that the petitioner/Manikandan is the owner of the cell phones. The said cell phones are in the custody of the Court, which are being kept idle without use. It is further submitted that if the cell phones are kept unused the phone would get fully damaged. The petitioner/Manikandan is not an accused in this case and the cellphone did not stand in the name of the accused and the cell phones did not contain incriminating matter. He would further submit that the petitioner/Gokulraj has been arrayed as Accused No.1 in this case and he was in possession of loan amount to meet out his family expenses and his family’s financial needs. The petitioner/Gokulraj was falsely implicated in this case and the cash was seized by the respondent police. Both the properties were remanded before the trial Court in RPR.No.37/2024. Therefore, interim custody of the above case properties may be granted to the petitioners.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent has filed the status report of the prosecution case and he would submit that the cell phones are used for the commission of crime i.e., illegal purchase of banned tobacco products and also the amount seized is the sale proceeds of banned tobacco products. The accused confessed that by contacting a person in Bangalore over phone only they received tobacco products from Bangalore. The properties are material evidences for the prosecution case and if they are returned they would alienate them.
7. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the cell phones and cash were seized on 14.01.2024 upon the allegation of illegal possession of banned t
