##PAGE1##

Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025

Late. Govindaraj (Died)

1. Gokilavani

2. Gomathi ... Appellants

Vs.

1. State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Tiruppur (Crime No.2 of 2022)

2. M/s.SRS Japanese Quail Products,

Genganaikkenpalayam,

Kattur Village, Pongalur,

Palladam.

(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated

28.11.2025 in Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025) ... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 11 of Criminal Amendment

Ordinance Act, 1944, to call the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.892 of

2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and set aside

the order dated 23.07.2025 and allow the appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed

For R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2 : Mr.Manoharan

for Mr.N.Ponraj

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:19:20 pm )

Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025

ORDER

The appeal has been filed challenging the order of attachment

passed by the District Judge under the Criminal Law (Amendment)

Ordinance Law, 1944 (referred to as the “Ordinance” as well).

2. When the matter was taken up for admission, Mr.N.Manoharan,

learned counsel for the defacto complainant / 2^nd respondent submitted

that the appeal is not maintainable that the District Judge under Criminal

Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 is only exercising powers of a Civil

Court and the procedure that he has to follow is that provided under the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 and therefore, a criminal appeal would not

be maintainable and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in

2014 (1) MLW Crl. 271 (NKKP Raja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu).

3. The learned counsel for the appellants however would submit

that the order of the attachment has been passed only because the

appellants were subjected to criminal prosecution and that merely

because the procedure provided under Ordinance for the District Judge to

conduct investigation of objection to attachment is CPC, it cannot be said

that the criminal appeal is not maintainable.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:19:20 pm )

Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025

4. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the District

Judge in exercise of his power under Criminal Law (Amendment)

Ordinance, 1944. It is pertinent to point out here that the said power of

attachment is not conferred on the Judge, who is trying the offence. The

scheme of the Ordinance suggests that the power to attach is independent

of the criminal prosecution as could be seen from the language employed

in Section 3 of the Ordinance. Section 3 provides that the State

Government or Central Government may, whether or not any Court has

taken cognizance of the offence, authorise the making of an application to

the District Judge for attachment of any property procured by means of an

offence or if such property or money cannot for any reason be attached or

any other property of the said person of the value as nearly as may be

equivalent to the aforesaid money or property. Section 3(2) provides

that the provisions of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to the proceedings for an order of

attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance. Similarly,

Section 5 which provides for investigation of objection to attachment,

also states that where there is an objection to the ad-interim order of

attachment, the objections shall be investigated by following the

procedure under CPC.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:19:20 pm )

Crl.A.No.1851 of 2025

5. This Court in an appeal which was filed as a Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal in the case NKKP Raja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, cited supra held

that such an appeal is maintainable. That apart, the powers of the Court to

attach property under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance was

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State o