2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
Mohamed Riswan Ali Alias Riswan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by – Respondent
##PAGE1##
Crl.R.C. No. 1432 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl. R.C. No. 1432 of 2025
Mohamed Riswan Ali @ Riswan,
S/o. Sithik,
No. 8/20, Tharakakalmattu Street,
Thiruvadanai, Tondi Post,
Thiruvadanai Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District – 623 409. ..Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
R.3, Ashok Nagar Police Station,
Chennai (Cr.No. 28/2025) ..Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438(1) r/w 442
BNSS to call for the records relating to the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P. No. 3944 of 2025 by the learned XVII Judicial Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai, concerned in Crime No. 28/2025 on the file of the
respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to hand over the
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:38 pm )
##PAGE2##Crl.R.C. No. 1432 of 2025
seized cash of Rs.10,57,900/- to the interim custody of the petitioner till the
disposal of the trial.
For Petitioner :: Mr.K. Madhan
For Respondent :: Mr.R. Vinothraja
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
The revision is filed challenging the dismissal of the
petition filed for return of cash of Rs.10,57,900/-, which was seized during
the course of investigation in Crime No. 28 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 296(b), 132, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 35 r/w 106
BNSS .
2. There are totally three accused and the petitioner is A1.
It is the case of the respondent that A2 and A3, without any valid document,
were found to be in possession of the said amount of Rs.10,57,900/-; that
their confession revealed that the cash belongs to the petitioner; that the
petitioner had directed them to deposit the said cash into the ATM machine
in favour of the accounts furnished by him and that neither the petitioner nor
A2 and A3 were able to explain the source of the said cash. It is the further
case of the prosecution that when the respondent intercepted the accused,
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:38 pm )
##PAGE3##Crl.R.C. No. 1432 of 2025
they abused the respondent in filthy language and also committed the
offence of criminal intimidation besides attempting to assault them.
3. The petitioner claiming ownership over the said cash
had sought for return of the same by filing Crl.M.P. No. 3944 of 2025 before
the Trial Court. However, the said petition came to be dismissed by the
Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner had not explained the source of
the said cash and that the purchase invoices and receipts produced by him
were only xerox copies.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent Police had filed the final report for offences under Sections
296(b), 132, 351(3) of BNS r/w Sections 35, 106 of BNSS and Section 4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner and the
other two accused; that the said final report is illegal inasmuch as the
respondent Police have no jurisdiction to file the final report for the offence
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; that Sections 35 and 106 of
BNSS are not penal provisions; that for the other alleged offences under
Sections 296(b), 132 and 351(3) of BNS, seizure of cash cannot be sustained
and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to return of cash.
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 03:21:38 pm )
##PAGE4##Crl.R.C. No. 1432 of 2025
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
would submit that though the respondent Police have no jurisdiction to file
the final report in respect of the offence under Section 4 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, the petitioner was unable to explain the
source of his income and therefore, the amount is liable to be confiscated.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
7. It is seen from the impugned order that the offences
alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 296(b), 132, 351(3) of BNS
r/w Sec