Crl.Rc.No.882 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.05.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

Crl.Rc.No.882 of 2023

Rishikesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station,

Chennai.

Crime No.107 of 2023.

... Respondent

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

401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in

Crl.M.P.No.2820/2023 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge,

Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: M/s. N.Arun Kumar

For Respondent

: S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate

(Crl.Side)

1/7

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

Crl.Rc.No.882 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order

passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and

NDPS Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2820 of 2023 and to return the

impounded mobile phone (Apple iPhone 13, Green colour).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A-3 and two other

accused were found in possession of 2 Kgs of Ganja. Hence, the respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2023 for the offences punishable

under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act against

them and seized the above said mobile phone along with contraband.

3. The petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2820 of 2023,

on the file of the Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS

Act, Chennai, to return his mobile phone. But it was dismissed by the Trial

Court, vide order dated 08.05.2023. Hence, challenging the above said

order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

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

2/7

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

Crl.Rc.No.882 of 2023

is arrayed as A3 in this Case and the said mobile phone is no way connected

with the case and if the seized mobile phone is kept at idle, it may

deteriorate in a short period. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to

give appropriate guarantee as well as security for return of mobile phone and

he will also produce the same, as and when required either before the

respondent police or before the Trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel for

the petitioner prayed to return the mobile phone to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the above said

mobile phone and the same was seized along with contraband. However, he

objected to return the mobile phone to the petitioner.

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

respondent and I have perused the materials available on record.

7. A perusal of the records would show that the respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2023 for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act against three

persons, viz., Rufus Gnanaraj/A1, Avinash/A2, and Rishikesh/A3, petitioner

3/7

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

Crl.Rc.No.882 of 2023

herein, regarding possession of 2 kgs of Ganja and seized the contraband

along with a mobile phone. Now the mobile phone is under safe custody of

police. The petitioner, who is the owner of the mobile phone, as stated supra,

filed a petition before the Trial Court to return the property and the same

was dismissed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the said mobile phone is no way connected with the case and if the

seized mobile phone is kept at idle, it may deteriorate in a short period and

the petitioner is ready to give guarantee and security for returning the

property.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking

into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the nature of offence, this Court is