Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Mala – Appellant
Versus
State rep.by the Inspector of Police, D1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai District. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition | Cr.No.763 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership over seized assets requires robust evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court found no evidence to overturn trial court’s decision. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order of the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.98 of 2026 dated 11.02.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has recovered a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as if it was the proceeds derived from Narcotics, whereas, the petitioner has submitted a pawn receipt dated
17.12.2025 before the trial Court, for pledging gold jewels belonging to her. However, having shown the documents that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- absolutely belongs to the petitioner and having received the said amount by way of gold loan from one M.Surendra Kumar Jain who is the pawn broker, the trial Court had dismissed the application, which is per se unsustainable. Hence, the order of the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai is liable to be set aside and a direction may be issued to return the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as interim custody.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly objects by contending that the recovery was made from A6 in Cr.No.763 of 2025 and the present petitioner is the mother of A6. He would further submit that the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion, therefore the same does not require any interference.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. As rightly Observed by the trial Court, it is too premature to decide the ownership in respect of Rs.3,00,000/-, though a pawn ticket has been submitted before the trial Court. That by itself is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- belonged to the petitioner, and not the proceeds from crime. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
