SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top