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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Raja – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.OP(MD)No.4882 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4882 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3519 and 3521 of 2025

1.Raja

2.Loganathan

3.Ramasamy ... Petitioners/Accused No.3,5 & 6

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by the Inspector of Police,

CSCID Virudhunagar

Crime No.561/2008. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant

2.Ashok Kumar .... 2nd Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in C.C. No. 102 of 2010 on the

file of the judicial magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram and quash the

charge sheet and the consequential further proceedings as against

the petitioners.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 12:00:31 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.OP(MD)No.4882 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr T.Lenin Kumar

For R-1 : Mr. M.Sakthikumar

Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.102 of 2010 pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. The petitioners

are arrayed as accused in the said case for the alleged offences under

Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of

Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, read with Section 7(1)(a)

(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Case of the prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, as seen from the First Information

Report and the final report, is that on 15.07.2008, the respondent

police, along with revenue officials, conducted surveillance and

intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-33-8326. Upon

inspection, the said lorry was found to contain 235 bags of rice, each

weighing 50 kilograms. Simultaneously, an Ambassador car bearing

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 12:00:31 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.OP(MD)No.4882 of 2025

Registration No.TAK-387, which was following the lorry, was also

intercepted and found to contain 5 bags of rice.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the driver of the

lorry allegedly confessed that he transported the rice at the instance

of the owner of the vehicle after unloading coconuts.

4. Based on the said allegations, the petitioners were

implicated on the premise that the first petitioner is the owner of the

lorry, the second petitioner is the driver, and the third petitioner is

the owner of the car.

5. The investigation culminated in filing a final report against

the petitioners and other accused alleging diversion of Public

Distribution System (PDS) rice, said to have been supplied by the

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation through fair price shops.

Grounds for quash:

6. The petitioners have approached this Court primarily on the

following grounds:

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 12:00:31 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.OP(MD)No.4882 of 2025

(i) The entire case against the petitioners rests solely on the

alleged confession of the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value

in law unless corroborated.

(ii) There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners

had purchased scheduled commodities from any family card holders,

which is a sine qua non to attract Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS)

Order, 1982.

(iii) No family card holder has been examined to substantiate

the allegation of illegal purchase of PDS rice.

(iv) The quality certificate relied upon by the prosecution was

issued by an authority not shown to be competent under law and

hence lacks evidentiary value.

(v) The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance mechanically

without application of judicial mind.

(vi) The case has been pending for more than 16 years without

any substantial progress, thereby causing serious prejudice to the

petitioners.

(vii) The case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in

State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992 SCC (Cri) 426) .

4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 12:00:31 pm )

##PAGE5##

Crl.OP

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top