Court upheld return of seized cash but directed deposit of property title deed to secure prosecution interest during pending investigation.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner State against the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2023.

2. This Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following order on 15.04.2026:-

… “2. The submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the petitioner/State, are as follows:-

2.1. During the search conducted at the house of one Jayapal, Deputy Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri District, who is the son-in-law of the respondent herein, in connection with Crime No.03/AC/2022, an unexplained cash of Rs.40 lakhs was seized and in such circumstances, if no proper explanation is given, the officials are entitled to recover the amount from the son-in-

law of the respondent.

2.2. Based on the seizure, an FIR has been registered against the son-in-law of the respondent and the investigation is pending. The son-in-law of the respondent has been directed to give an explanation with regard to the recovery of the huge sum and till date, no explanation has been given by him. 2.3. Meanwhile, the respondent had filed a petition seeking return of the aforesaid seized cash and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, without taking into consideration the pendency of investigation, has allowed the petition without imposing any stringent condition so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.

2.4. There is every possibility of the respondent spending the money, in which event recovery would become difficult.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, has also imposed a condition that if required, the respondent has to deposit an amount in the Court. However, without prejudice to his rights, the respondent is also ready to furnish any other security to the satisfaction of this Court.

4. Post the matter on 20.04.2026.”

3. Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the petitioner State, submitted that since the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, had imposed a flimsy condition in the order dated 25.08.2025 without taking into consideration the interest of the State, this revision case has been filed challenging the said order. He further submitted that till date, the investigation is pending.

4. Mr.N.U.Pressanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent is a man of means and that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, had imposed a condition requiring the respondent to deposit the amount into the Court, as and when required. He further submitted that the respondent has purchased a property measuring 1 acre 4 cents vide Sale Deed dated 24.09.2025, registered at the Office of the SRO, Aramangalam. Since the amount deposited in the Court may not fetch interest, the respondent has already withdrawn the amount and invested the same in the purchase of a land, the current market value of which is Rs.40,00,000/-. He further submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to hand over the original title deed of the said land to the Court concerned to protect the interest of the State.

5. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2024 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2023. However, to strike a balance and protect the interest of the State, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent may be directed to hand over the original title deed of the property to the Court concerned so that the